The idea makes perfect sense. Instead of a punch card ballot, you have a computer screen, click or push what you want. The system asks "This is what you said. Is this right?" A person says "yes" or "no, I want to change my votes", makes whatever changes, and it's done.
It's so simple, even a Florida voter couldn't get it wrong.
I hate it.
I'm sure there are those out there going "But John - you're a geek. It's computer based - what's wrong with that?"
Simple: verifiability.
The biggest problem with the Florida election, in theory, is that there wasn't a way to really verify what the votes were. The punch cards, which were fed through a machine, were suppose to give that. And, if the machine didn't work, somebody could just look at the punch card and say "well, there's a hole here - they must have wanted to vote for Person X".
The problem with the computer based voting machines is that the data is saved to a hard drive, then transmitted in some fashion (via floppy, CD-ROM, network transmission, whatever) to a central place - but there is no paper trail involved.
There is suppose to be a sheet of paper in some circumstances that gives a percentage of votes and the like, so if the actual votes don't match that we're suppose to feel good about it.
Not good enough, I have to say.
If the goal is to increase accuracy, then with every vote, the voter should get a sheet of paper they can look at, say "Yup - this is what I vote for", and drop it in the box. The results can still be stored and transmitted electronically - but in the event of a question on the results, those paper records can be taken out of the boxes and looked at by hand.
If the goal is to decrease the use of paper - well, then the current system of computer based voting machines is "good enough". It doesn't really offer any protection against hacking, against the voting machine company itself electronically changing the votes, the source is not Open to verify there aren't some other kinds of shenanigans going on - but if people are looking to reduce costs, then that's the price they pay.
Bev Harris says it best in the Wired article: "We'll never know exactly what happened in Georgia because there's no paper trail to verify the votes."
People talk about the John F Kennedy assassination and conspiracies not because there really was a conspiracy (my opinion - it was a nut case in the warehouse with a rifle. Case closed) - but because the government did little to put everybody's fears to rests and left "holes in knowledge" open.
It's the reason why people still say "Bush stole the Florida election" (whether you believe that or not, and I really don't want to get into that) - because we still don't really know, since the counting was stopped by the Supreme Court (again, I don't want to get into the debate of "was that right or not").
So, for electronic voting systems.
Idea: Good.
Requirements: Source code must be open so all can review it.
Paper trail must follow each vote so the voter can review it and place in the ballot box.
Marilyn Monroe:
Idea: Hot
Requirements: Really should have learned how to swim.
Sorry for the last part. I just wanted to make sure you're paying attention.
In the company I work for, while there are certain standards of computers and operating systems, most of the time these "standards" are a "follow these if you want assistance" type.
In other words, if you do not have a Dell computer with Windows 2000/XP on it, the IT staff does not want to hear from you.
At the same time, they really don't give a care what you use on your desktop. Which, since I work for a company that does a lot of security work, actually makes some twisted sense. We have people running around the place running everything from Windows to GNU/Linux to OpenBSD (which is the OS of choice for our penetration testers), as well as quite a few OS X users.
So how does the IT staff handle this? Well, the first part, as I said, is if it's not the "official company approved stuff", they don't talk to you about it.
On the other hand, everything else tends to work because they system is set up to follow most open standards. They follow the DHCP proper configurations (and, if you've ever worked with Windows DHCP, you know there are ways to make it so that UNIX based machines will not be able to fully work within the environment depending on what settings you mess with). The Intranet runs on the https port, and they don't have any javascript/flash or anything that would prevent somone who's connecting via a slow VPN link and just using Lynx to log their hours to have a headache.
I've read the stories of the "well, if so-and-so brought that kind of machine into the building, we'd fire them!", then those same companies complain of rampant viruses because of their monoculture.
To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But for those places which have the "this is the Support System - you can run whatever you like, as long as it a) has antivirus, b) you don't try to get around the firewall, and c) you don't bug us to support your weirdness", the employees are emplowered to get whatever tool they need to get the job done. Part of the company's system is 0% interest loans to employees to buy their own computers, which encourages them to buy their own stuff and use it for work (such as my Powerbook, or my Pen-Tester's BSD laptop, and so on).
It seems to work in my company, and except for 1 quarter in 30 years, we have yet to not make a profit. And we don't worry about the IT staff except when we have to.
Oh, hey, look at that - you're doing something I don't like.
You know, I could hit you with this baseball bat. You deserve it, you know, for saying that my security of the plant doesn't work too well since I leave the backdoor unlocked and unprotected.
But I won't. No, I'm just walking here in front of you, slappin' this bat against my palm - but I'm not really going to hit you with it for saying that people could just walk into the back of the store because my level of "protection" really just involves scaring away the local kids.
You did a study on my security system so people could make an informed choice about either using me, or saving the money by not having me walk up and down the sidewalk glaring at people? You know, you intellectual types are the reason why people steal things in the first place, and why my security techniques don't work on folks.
I should hit you with this bat. I still might - but I'm not.
-- SunComm
Stop sarcasm here.
Look, SunComm, you're solution you peddled to the music folks is just not secure. You know it, we know it - you're just pissed that your customers, who you thought were a bunch of luddite rubes, now know it. Granted, your customers should realize that there are other ways to ensure profit (lowering prices, giving less restrictive online purchasing options like those seen by the iTunes store, the MusicMatch store, and growing others) - but as far as your business is concerned, it's a wash.
I would state that it depends on the distrubution.
For example, OS X installs the first user as an Administrator (though several tasks require they enter their password as a sort of sudo command - but most users would simply do so without thinking of the consequences).
The last time I installed Red Hat (7.2 I believe), it had you set the root user, then create a new normal user - assuming the user logs in as themselves, and not root, then the protections will work.
I think the best note is "if users act like they should" (which is easier in an office environment than a home one), then virses onto UNIX based systems (GNU/Linux, BSD, or otherwise) won't get very far and will find quick death if spread using the standard "social engineering" ways of the MS Windows world.
The difference between UNIX systems and Windows ones is that there are fewer protections on Windows to prevent System-level commands from being run. On a UNIX box, if I'm signing on as me (non-admin type), then I can feel pretty good about general security. If I'm on a Windows box, I'm going to have to be double cautious with everything that crosses my email or my browser - whether I actively run it or not.
So I'd say he made some fallacies, but overall his point is more correct than the cries of "Well, there are less viruses on GNU/Linux and OS X because nobody runs it! Nyah!"
I don't mind playing a good LAN party game with people I know, but back when I was pretty good at Quake II, and started to try out MMRPG's like the "Ultima Online" beta, I realized that I just didn't enjoy playing the online games for one simple reason:
Most of the people online acted like assholes.
Too often, I'd log into a Quake/Quake II server, and get some punk calling me a MotherF---er because his team was losing at Capture the Flag. I got tired of Ultima Online when, during the beta, some jackass got in the way of the door and wouldn't let me walk out.
Diablo? Town killed by someone who thought it was fun to use the cheats to kill people.
On the whole, I tend to like the gamers I know in person and through my writings. But in online games, it seems that there are hordes of people who never learned to act above the age of 12, and need a good kick in the ass - or just never be allowed to play with anyone else online again.
It's probably the #1 reason why Nintendo still hasn't moved into online gaming in a big way (so far, Sega's Phantasy Star Online is their only online experience) - they don't want Jimmy's parents complaining about how their child got ragged on as a "Pikachu-f---er" during Pokemon Online.
The author's right - the penalities for "bad" behavior in an online format might work with some who have a community in the game, but for those who just want to be a dickhead, it's hard to do much other than ban them, since they have little emotionally wrapped up in the game.
Even with Google, trying to find a ROM to an old game can take some time. But if I knew that I could go to a place where I could legally buy the ROM, know it was a good quality one and not full of a virus or weird messages or something, I'd have no problem plunking down $6 for a game.
I've been wondering how long it would take for some publishers to realize the potential profits. Is $10 a good price to play "Super Mario RPG"? How about to find a copy of "Chrono Trigger" (yes, I know it's out for the Playstation One, it's an example).
I still hope for a day where publishers will have older games to order on demand. I go to a website, pay $30 - $50, and I can get a newly minted working version of Panzer Dragoon Saga - it's selling on eBay for $150, and that's money the publisher isn't getting.
So I wish these guys all the luck, because I know I would use them if they have a game I wanted. Hey - they've got Klax! Cool!
One thing that companies outside the US (Germany, China, South Korea, South American nations, etc) is that employing Microsoft is really only good for Microsoft.
But by switching to Open Source for the government, there are several benefits that "trickle down":
1. Programmers within the specified nations are now employed, which keeps money inside the country.
2. The advances that come from Open Source software can be then used in businesses inside the country, which reduces there expenses, and if more development/administration is needed, they can look inside their own country rather than going elsewhere.
3. Exportability. If you have a country with top engineers in Open Source, and another country happens to need those, you are now in a better position to export those services.
I'm not quite with the "governments should make laws forcing Open Source down people's throats", but I am in support of measures that will give them control over their own software destiny.
Granted - as long as they play by the rules of the GPL, BSD, and other licenses.
Why do you feel the need to fill up your entire iPod with music?
I'm not trying to be annoying here, but why do people think "Oh, I have an [insert MP3 player here], and if songs are $1 each, that means I have to pay $2000 to make it useful!"
Huh? Why not buy the iPod (or other MP3 player), then either rip the music you already legally own, or buy it over time. You know - $10 a month or so.
Last time I checked, you don't have to fill up your MP3 player once you buy it, so I don't understand your argument that "$1 a song is too much because I have to spend all this money to fill up my MP3 player!"
I know, I know - lawyers are never allowed to say "We screwed up, sorry", but I thought the bit from the RIAA about how:
"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," Colin J. Zick, the Foley Hoag lawyer, wrote to Beeler.
So yeah, we screwed the pooch - but we might be back anyway!
On the one hand, I think that the RIAA has a legitimate issue with P2P services sharing their music.
Does that mean that I support the lawsuits? No - I think it's a civil end run around legitimate search and seizure. If I was the RIAA would I be using the lawsuits? No.
Personally, I'd take all the millions in lawyer fees and do something useful, like promote the iTunes Music Store, or pressure Sony and Buymusic.com to not suck more ass than a freshman prison inmate. I'd set up legitimate music downloading services based on Janis Ian's model, where all songs warehoused could be purchased for $1, or an album for $10. I'd set up 128 bit MP3's for $1, have 192 bit for maybe $1.25 - $1.50. Of that, 50% of the profit would go to the artist, 50% to the publisher. Note the word "profit" - it is assumed that the publishers would be taking a fair (bwahahaha - oh, sorry, I almost said that with a straight face) cut based on how much it costs a song to be stored in a central server and bandwidth costs (and that price should not go above $0.50 per song).
It should also be set up like Peanutpress.com, where once you buy a song, you can go back and download it again whenever you want, or can have it streamed wherever you are. (Since songs are much larger than eBooks usually, though, I can see some sort of minor "storage fee", like $0.01 per song per month - it should be your responsibility to back up your own stuff.)
And a quick note for the "$1 per song is too much", I'm sorry if you take this personally, but fuck you. $1 is perfectly legit for a song, $10 for a music album. If you're too damn cheap to pay any price at all for music, at least have the decency not to claim that the cost is too much. Just come out and say "I can't afford $1 after buying my $300 iPod!"
Then, and only then, if people were "sharing songs", then you could sue them, and I would feel you had done your due diligence in serving your customers and could have a solid leg to stand on for the lawsuits.
The great thing about standards, and having "open" systems, is that everybody is on fair ground. Why does Red Hat and Suse outsell their competition? Is it because they have some "secret extra" that locks in their customers?
Well, no (at least not for the most part). It's because of the other things they bring to support the standard, such as service, support, upgrades, developing to add to what has been done to make the "standard" easier to use.
So if China wants to base their software on Linux, more power to them - as long as they obey the GPL. If they make an improvement to make it easier to use Chinese characters on the command line, great - release it to everybody else. If they make a processor that works like Intel and they want to make it public, have a good time.
So I disagree with Mr. Barrett in principle that using regional standards is a "bad" thing - as long as those standards are published, realized by everybody, and don't have any hidden "gotchas".
What China will have to remember is the great thing about standards - there are so many of them. They (and by this I mean China's oppressive communist government) might think of some great standards, like "electrocute religious dissodents if they touch a computer". Or "file encryption systems must have a government backdoor at any time".
Because the rest of the world might not want to use that particular standard in their stuff. And if you have 75% of the world not using your standard, you either have to a) say you don't care (and make Mr. Barrett right), b) modify your standard, or c) join the rest of the world.
And if it turns out they're just taking the intellectual property of others - including Linux and yes, Intel - and not returning it to the group, they'll find that people will not be as interested in playing in their sandbox.
So have fun, China, and I hope to see some interesting new standards. I actually wish you luck if you decide you want to make your own processors and software, and if you truly want to make both open for all to use, have a good time.
A million fans are about to cry out in terror - and are suddenly silenced.
Episodes 4-6: I liked them. They were the cowboy fantasy with a tale to tell of redemption, growing into an adult, and the small, plucky rebellion beating the odds against an Empire of British accented bad guys.
Episodes 1-2? We've got some of the worst scripting that has ever happened. Episode 2 alone was nearly a black hole in a craptastic display that was barely saved by the precense of Ass Kickin' Yoda. (And it still had the stupid heroes who couldn't seem to figure out how to roll out of the way of a falling hunk of metal so Yoda had to save their dumb asses rather than taking out the "Bad Guy".)
So unless Episode 3 has a huge song and dance scene with a whole parade of digially generated Natalie Portmans in that super tight white Princess Leia like outfits singing "You Are My Sunshine", I'll just wait until it shows up as a special on Fox.
With plenty of commercial interruptions so I can have a time for hurlage.
You already own a PS2 as "Joe Homeguy". You could go out and buy a new computer, but the guy at the store says "Well, just buy this Hard Drive upgrade for $200 for your PS2, and stick in this CD with Linux on it, and off you go".
So you take it home, and do that. You can surf the web, get your email, write up documents, and you're good. Want to play your games? Just shut it off (and you don't know it's using a journaled filesystem, so all of your files aren't ruined - and besides, it just stores the data on the hard drive, the OS "lives" on the CD you stick in).
Remove the Linux CD, stick in Metal Gear Solid 3/Kingdom Hearts/Disgaea (which is probably one of the best games this year) - and you're playing. You can even play online with the Broadband adapter in the back if you want.
Want to use the TV? No problem. You don't worry about upgrades - when the Linux Service, they send you a new disk every month, and it only costs $10 a year, and it includes demos of new games. Just stick in the disk, and you can do more 'stuff'.
This is the kind of thing that Linux in the home could be great for. And since there are 60,000,000 PS2's in the world, all with 99% similiar hardware, the Linux distribution wouldn't worry too much about compatibility - if you want something else to work, like a USB hard drive or a USB keychain storage media to transmit files between work/home (or that stores your basic settings, so you could go to a friends house and use their "computer" - I mean, PS2 to check your mail and 'stuff' if you like.
So I'd say Linux on the PS2 is just as important as working to make Gnome and KDE better. It gives a possible leverage that could avoid the desktop computer monopoly, by bypassing it altogether
Granted, I usually just get the ones from peanutpress.com (I'll forgo the link - you guys can cut 'n paste).
They fit on a Palm, I think Windows CE devices, and can even be read on a windows/OS X box. (No idea if Linux support is even offered, though I doubt it for some reason.)
My previous Palm Vx was a great eBook, and my Tungsten is even better. I can put it in a pocket, read on the train, toilet, and the rest. And they tend to have modern books (I'm about to break down and get Tad Williams "War of the Flowers".)
Most of the book reviews I've written for/. come from peanutpress.com libraries. And they're usually a few bucks cheaper than the meatspace versions anyway - and I don't waste a tree.
My main question is how would the ownership of the file be transferred?
At the moment, the Apple Store lets you "authorize" music files. So for this person, after the file had been "sold", he would have to deauthorize the up to 3 other computers that had been allowed to play the song, give a copy of the file to the buyer, then provide them with his Apple iTunes Store username/password so they could authorize it on their machine.
As he mentions, he could call up Apple and ask them to switch his authorization of the song to another user.
Either way, it does raise an interesting question, and as someone who has been using the iTunes Music Store, I've never thought about it: Suppose that years from now, I want to sell all my downloaded music files to someone else. Is there a way to transfer the license? What if I left them in a will to my children later on - could Apple be required to ensure that they could use the files later?
Or he's about to run into a massive "legal agreement" which will negate his First Sale ability - we'll just have to see what happens, neh?
Does this mean that IBM could lobby to have Microsoft not considered? That Sun could lobby to get Apple banned from other meetings because they have a different set of Intellectual Property protection than what Buymusic.com has? (All right, bad example, but....)
It seems that the only way that some businesses (read: Microsoft) are able to keep up the pressure against Linux is by trying to do it with laws. Why don't we have an Open Source DVD player for Linux? Oh - well, the MPAA helped get a law passed that makes it basically illegal to create. Sorry about that, but that's just how it works.
Yes, I'm a little irritated, and if I discover that my local senator/congressman was involved in this in any way, they can expect a nastygram listed as "voting for the other guy come election day".
I find it interesting how the major players (aka "Microsoft") are trying to keep out their real competition. What if Open Source was part of the Intellectual Property decisions? Wouldn't that be a good thing for everybody if every OS supported Intellectual Property in a truly fair and just matter? Well, good for everyone except Microsoft - can't have a level playing field if we can keep the competition out, right?
And still am, and I'm only halfway through the articles, and I plan on printing them out for a long, leisurely read later, perhaps in a bath full of bubbles.
What the articles are about is not about gaming journalism. Oh, they talk about games and writing and things that "real journalists" take for granted, like "fact checking" and "verifying information with sources" and the like.
What the articles are about is an awakening. Some people will say "What's the big deal - they're only games, why all the interest in how games are discussed?"
It's because I believe games are starting to reach a certain cusp. It's barely there, and underneath the rush to make the next Murder Death Killer and Massive Movie Franchise Game Version and Hey Kids, Here's a Bright Light - there are stirrings of something different happening.
Some games are getting shorter, like "Silent Hill 3", and some developers are starting to use words like "mood", "emotion", "art". We have people like an interview with series producer, Keisuke Kikuchi for Fatal Frame 2 have this moment in an interview:
IGN: You've told us once that you think the sight of a frightened girl is one of the most beautiful images. Can you elaborate on this?
KK: I believe that human emotion is a conductive thing. We feel naturally emotionally attached to something weak such as I mentioned above. I think that the ultimate in horror is watching that weak entity, struggling against its own fear, obsessed with trying to stay alive.
Why are game developers talking about beauty? Everybody knows that games are just for teenage kids and immature grownups who just want to get their kicks and watch big breasted girls bouncing about!
The articles at insertcredit.com are talking about a new need that is going unfilled - the need to have games thought about, talked about, researched about, and written about in an intelligent way. Still funny at times, not at others, but they're talking about a desire to have games written about with the same care and attention as a movie, a painting, as an NPR show talking music CDs and the trends and how one piece of music gets its inspiration from something else.
Games are becoming art. Oh, not yet - I'd say we're still 20 years away before the industry settles down. Like movies, there will always be the big budget big explosion big breasted girl games that appeal to a lot of people. But there will be more games like "Ico" that are just beautiful and haunting. Or games that that will do for interactive entertainment what "Saving Private Ryan" or "Momento" or "Gone with the Wind" has done in movies, or "War of the Worlds" for radio.
We're still on the cusp of this idea. But I think insertcredit's articles today are a part of that idea that were moving from "games are just fun!" to "games should be taken a little more seriously and a little more professionaly."
Eh - or I could be totally missing the point. But that's just my opinion on the matter.
I'm trying to imagine how miserable shooting that scene in the rain was, especially when you realize it probably wasn't done on the first take.
Wearing all those clothes, which are sopping wet, and that water ruining the shoes, getting into the socks, and you've got to run in it -
Granted, I'm sure the actors got a great paycheck out of it. But every time I watch them running in the rain, I can't help but feel for those poor, wrinkled little toes encased in shoes that are screaming "No - keep the mold away! Save us, Gold Bond!"
Let's define the nature of the ultimate goal in robots in the business - I'm sure there will be quibbles, but this is my definition:
Ultimate Goal: To create a robot with human level intelligence and physical manipulation without sentience or self awareness.
By this definition, we mean the capacity to learn, to be instructed in tasks and incorporate ideas into itself and understand commands without detail, but without sentience or self awareness, never having emotions or being able to make fully independant decisions about freedom, what to do for itself.
In a word, the ultimate metal slave.
Let's throw ethics out the window for a moment - we'll get to those in a minute. But let's say you could make such a machine. One that you could give orders to "go clean the house", and it would intelligently understand and fulfill your wish without the "evil genie" effect (where a badly ruled wish has unintended consequences - see "The Monkey's Paw" for an example, where you could wish for a million dollars, and you would get it - after your son was killed in an automobile accident and the money was payment from a life insurance policy).
Ignoring if such a goal is possible (and, seeing how far we've come in 100 years, is it so far to reach that in 500 years we would be capable of building such a machine?), let's see what would happen to society.
Employees, especially blue collar, farmers, manufacturing and the like, could be mass produced. A whole army of robots that would work without tire, without pay, and if you could make them mass produced to be cheap (say $20,000 - $40,000 a year), if they break, get a new one. They could work day and night, rotating in 8-12 hour shifts for maintenance and repairs. Farms could be worked all day long, and if there was a problem, robots could go out and fix the issue. Need to pick the cotton/coffee beans? Just hire the robots to go out and do it. Wars fought by machines - never tiring, truly "bloodless" wars where a million "soldiers" could be airdropped into the field loaded with advanced weapons to wipe out the enemy by beings that have no conscience. (Granted, hacking would truly become the greatest weapon in society at that point, but just go with me a moment on the idea.)
Food prices, car prices - hell, prices for everything could actually drop, since the human cost of making them would be negligable. Ah - but for one major problem:
What do the people do?
Millions - let's even say 25% of the work force alone, just to argue - out of work. They're not needed at McDonald's or Ford or even Dell - replaced by machines. So what do they do? Not everybody could work in a robot making factory. Does the world start to become a place where human labor is practically no longer required? Where only a few work because they want to to design new things or create art, while millions simply live a life of leisure? Where everyone is guarunteed a certain level of life and comfort, and those who want more can sell their services of entertainment or some unique idea they are able to create in this new utopia of fully attained basic life for all people?
Or a world where millions can not get work and search but become homeless? If people think that having jobs from their country exported to foreign places willing to do it for less, how will they feel when the factory is still on native soil, but the jobs are for those tireless, non-paid, non-complaining machines? When they can't provide for their children, and the line between "haves" and "have-nots" is larger than ever?
I actually see a lot of promise in the idea - I really do. The benefits to business, to humanity could be huge. But I have the feeling should such a creation actua
No, the boy bands aren't beginning to fail because they are created not by people who simply love music, but created to fit a specific formula to have mass appeal with lyrics that mean nothing.
Or the media singing creations like Britney and Christine are suffering a backlash and lower CD sales because their listeners are beginning to recognize them not as artists, but as glammed up beauty queens made to appeal to the most common denominator.
Movies aren't failing because they have canned stories that can be anticipated by a 5 year old, from the "Ultra-pretty female scientist who never picks up a bunson burner" to the "totally evil corporate guy that you cheer when he dies though you know it's coming the first time he does something so impossibly stupidly evil you know he wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real business world".
No, it's not because more people - not all, and in some cases, not enough - are beginning to tell their friends "Hey - you know [Insert Movie Here]? It's not that great. Yeah, don't see it." because the movie really isn't that great - it must be because they're bypassing the marketing system that is meant to polish shit and sell it as gold.
I'm really not too concerned, because in the end, "money talks and bullshit walks". The now gone Filthy Critic may have been a foul mouth bastard - but he was usually pretty spot on about calling a turd a turd, and giving praise when it was deserved. Compared to many "movie critics" who sound like paid whores (or, in the infamous Sony case, are totally made up to give bad movies a good name **cough**Freddy Got Fingered**cough**.
Word of mouth of viewers is becoming more powerful all the time. Look how low budget movies like "Bend it like Beckham" are doing better than expected thanks to word of mouth (which I actually thought was pretty good - though I can't figure out why all the ads feature the white girl Jules as the main attraction when she's not the main character).
If we're lucky, movie studios will realize that it makes more money to make a really good movie that people will want to talk about and recommend to their friends - than have sloppy, lazy writing that doesn't really entertain - it just numbs.
Eh - but that's my own take on recent movies. I could be wrong.
2. The "walkie-talkie" feature so I can call my wife any time of the day when I'm out of town, and not get roaming/long distance bill.
That's pretty much all I care for. Don't want games (my NES emulator on my Palm and my GBA fill that bill), internet/email (nothing against others - but I can't use a little screen), text messaging (if I want IRC sex, I'll do it without cramping my thumbs to death).
I've been using Apples ITMS for a bit - and I'm actually surprised that when I go to buy some music (like BB King or a classical CD or Live), I will often make sure it's in an album.
At first, it was just the opposite - I just wanted one song. But now that I've got those "one songs off the CD I really wanted" out of my system, more often than not I'll say "You know, I've never really listened to Bjork, though I remember liking that one song on MTV a kabillion years ago with the bear - maybe I'll just pay the $10 for the whole CD - because if I pay $1 and pick the wrong song, then I'll wind up paying over $10 to get the others".
I'm not sure if it makes much sense, but I'm finding I'm buying the album to save money (especially if said album, like the BB King album I picked up has 18 tracks to it - at $9.99, that turned out to be a bargain).
Let's not kid ourselves: for all of Microsoft's talk of "innovation", the one thing they're really good at is seeing another idea that works, making their own version of it, then making it "good enough" that their desktop monopoly can make money off of it.
So, let's take a look at their new music service:
Media Type: Windows Media Audio 9.
The Good: No big surprise, and depending on who you ask, it sounds better than MP3's at the same format. Anybody with either a new computer or someone who upgrades to Windows Media Player 9 should have it work just fine.
The Bad: Nobody but a Windows user can use it. But since the other big competitor Apple only lets it work with Macs, that means that a 4% user base is now hitting against a 90% user base - so it's all balanced in the end, I guess. Apple should have their service in Windows at the end of this year, and Windows Media Player 9 should be available "someday" for OS X, so then we can compare apples to apples (no pun intended).
Depending on who you ask, Apple's use of AAC isn't really a full open standard, since they've got the security hooks inside - but it's a far more open standard than WMA (Windows Media Audio). Any chance we'll see either one on Linux? Anyone? Guys?
The License:
The Good: No subscription fee, which I think is the #1 draw of the new music formats. Most of the songs are around 0.99 euros, which comes out to be $1.15 or so per track. And you can copy some to your portable players or burn CD tracks with them.
The Bad: So far, this is where Apple's service is kicking the other two's services right in the Jimmy. Apple's system is cut and dried: Every song, up to 3 computers, unlimited iPods, unlimited CD burns.
With Buymusic.com and Microsoft's service - it depends on the song. Maybe you can put it in a portable, maybe not. Maybe you can burn it, maybe not. So that means before you buy each song you'll have to either say "Well, I will only play these songs on this computer forever!", or say "Hm - let's see what the license is before I make my Ultimate Dance Track for the Anime Pool Party this Saturday.".
It's something the "average joe" won't care about - until one day, they go to do something, and don't understand why Song A can be copied/burned, but Song B can not. Will Apple use this in their marketing? Who knows - and odds are, people won't think enough to care.
The Selection:
The Good: 200,000 songs to start off with.
The Bad: No clue - I haven't seen the line up.
Final score:
Undecided. Microsoft's new music service looks more like BuyMusic.com's, only it's in Europe. Same media format, same licensing structure - only it's going to be inside the Windows Media Player and not just a web page for downloading.
Odds are, Apple's service will still be better with the "one license for every track" rule. But as history has shown, Micorosoft does not necessarily have to be "better" than the competition - usually "good enough" will do to make them money.
Either way, if Apple wants to get the bucks before competitor #1 eats the market, it needs to get its ass moving on its Windows service and those deals in Europe.
Assuming that the individual is in decent health and not a 200 year old husk of skin kept alive by machines - I think I know what I would do with immortality:
1. Finally finish Xenogears (which, after over 6 months of playing, I'm still working on. How long is this game, anyway?)
2. Try every possible combination of Jelly Belly Jelly Beans. (Hm - Mint Pineapple Peanut Butter - yup, that sucks. Check off the list. Now lets try Vanilla Chocolate Pepper! No...)
3. Recreate the movie Gone with the Wind frame for frame using my specially trained gerbels. (Once I figure out how little Rett is going to carry Scarlet up the little mouse stairs.)
4. See Sakura Taisen finally ported to English, or barring that, have the universal translator chip implanted into my brain.
5. Watch Neon Genesis Evangelion and have the final episodes of the TV series plus the two movies actually make some sense.
Wahahahaha! Oh, I'm kidding - EVA make sense. My bad.
6. Finally shoot Pac-Man: The Movie.
7. Go to space. With my wife. Close the hatch for some privacy. Get our space freak on to the music of "Thus Spoke Zarathrusta" (the 2001 music) for our own "docking manuevers".
Just some ideas off the top of my head to do with immortaility.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea makes perfect sense. Instead of a punch card ballot, you have a computer screen, click or push what you want. The system asks "This is what you said. Is this right?" A person says "yes" or "no, I want to change my votes", makes whatever changes, and it's done.
It's so simple, even a Florida voter couldn't get it wrong.
I hate it.
I'm sure there are those out there going "But John - you're a geek. It's computer based - what's wrong with that?"
Simple: verifiability.
The biggest problem with the Florida election, in theory, is that there wasn't a way to really verify what the votes were. The punch cards, which were fed through a machine, were suppose to give that. And, if the machine didn't work, somebody could just look at the punch card and say "well, there's a hole here - they must have wanted to vote for Person X".
The problem with the computer based voting machines is that the data is saved to a hard drive, then transmitted in some fashion (via floppy, CD-ROM, network transmission, whatever) to a central place - but there is no paper trail involved.
There is suppose to be a sheet of paper in some circumstances that gives a percentage of votes and the like, so if the actual votes don't match that we're suppose to feel good about it.
Not good enough, I have to say.
If the goal is to increase accuracy, then with every vote, the voter should get a sheet of paper they can look at, say "Yup - this is what I vote for", and drop it in the box. The results can still be stored and transmitted electronically - but in the event of a question on the results, those paper records can be taken out of the boxes and looked at by hand.
If the goal is to decrease the use of paper - well, then the current system of computer based voting machines is "good enough". It doesn't really offer any protection against hacking, against the voting machine company itself electronically changing the votes, the source is not Open to verify there aren't some other kinds of shenanigans going on - but if people are looking to reduce costs, then that's the price they pay.
Bev Harris says it best in the Wired article: "We'll never know exactly what happened in Georgia because there's no paper trail to verify the votes."
People talk about the John F Kennedy assassination and conspiracies not because there really was a conspiracy (my opinion - it was a nut case in the warehouse with a rifle. Case closed) - but because the government did little to put everybody's fears to rests and left "holes in knowledge" open.
It's the reason why people still say "Bush stole the Florida election" (whether you believe that or not, and I really don't want to get into that) - because we still don't really know, since the counting was stopped by the Supreme Court (again, I don't want to get into the debate of "was that right or not").
So, for electronic voting systems.
Idea: Good.
Requirements: Source code must be open so all can review it.
Paper trail must follow each vote so the voter can review it and place in the ballot box.
Marilyn Monroe:
Idea: Hot
Requirements: Really should have learned how to swim.
Sorry for the last part. I just wanted to make sure you're paying attention.
In the company I work for, while there are certain standards of computers and operating systems, most of the time these "standards" are a "follow these if you want assistance" type.
In other words, if you do not have a Dell computer with Windows 2000/XP on it, the IT staff does not want to hear from you.
At the same time, they really don't give a care what you use on your desktop. Which, since I work for a company that does a lot of security work, actually makes some twisted sense. We have people running around the place running everything from Windows to GNU/Linux to OpenBSD (which is the OS of choice for our penetration testers), as well as quite a few OS X users.
So how does the IT staff handle this? Well, the first part, as I said, is if it's not the "official company approved stuff", they don't talk to you about it.
On the other hand, everything else tends to work because they system is set up to follow most open standards. They follow the DHCP proper configurations (and, if you've ever worked with Windows DHCP, you know there are ways to make it so that UNIX based machines will not be able to fully work within the environment depending on what settings you mess with). The Intranet runs on the https port, and they don't have any javascript/flash or anything that would prevent somone who's connecting via a slow VPN link and just using Lynx to log their hours to have a headache.
I've read the stories of the "well, if so-and-so brought that kind of machine into the building, we'd fire them!", then those same companies complain of rampant viruses because of their monoculture.
To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But for those places which have the "this is the Support System - you can run whatever you like, as long as it a) has antivirus, b) you don't try to get around the firewall, and c) you don't bug us to support your weirdness", the employees are emplowered to get whatever tool they need to get the job done. Part of the company's system is 0% interest loans to employees to buy their own computers, which encourages them to buy their own stuff and use it for work (such as my Powerbook, or my Pen-Tester's BSD laptop, and so on).
It seems to work in my company, and except for 1 quarter in 30 years, we have yet to not make a profit. And we don't worry about the IT staff except when we have to.
Start sarcasm here.
Oh, hey, look at that - you're doing something I don't like.
You know, I could hit you with this baseball bat. You deserve it, you know, for saying that my security of the plant doesn't work too well since I leave the backdoor unlocked and unprotected.
But I won't. No, I'm just walking here in front of you, slappin' this bat against my palm - but I'm not really going to hit you with it for saying that people could just walk into the back of the store because my level of "protection" really just involves scaring away the local kids.
You did a study on my security system so people could make an informed choice about either using me, or saving the money by not having me walk up and down the sidewalk glaring at people? You know, you intellectual types are the reason why people steal things in the first place, and why my security techniques don't work on folks.
I should hit you with this bat. I still might - but I'm not.
-- SunComm
Stop sarcasm here.
Look, SunComm, you're solution you peddled to the music folks is just not secure. You know it, we know it - you're just pissed that your customers, who you thought were a bunch of luddite rubes, now know it. Granted, your customers should realize that there are other ways to ensure profit (lowering prices, giving less restrictive online purchasing options like those seen by the iTunes store, the MusicMatch store, and growing others) - but as far as your business is concerned, it's a wash.
Now we can all get on with our lives.
I would state that it depends on the distrubution.
For example, OS X installs the first user as an Administrator (though several tasks require they enter their password as a sort of sudo command - but most users would simply do so without thinking of the consequences).
The last time I installed Red Hat (7.2 I believe), it had you set the root user, then create a new normal user - assuming the user logs in as themselves, and not root, then the protections will work.
I think the best note is "if users act like they should" (which is easier in an office environment than a home one), then virses onto UNIX based systems (GNU/Linux, BSD, or otherwise) won't get very far and will find quick death if spread using the standard "social engineering" ways of the MS Windows world.
The difference between UNIX systems and Windows ones is that there are fewer protections on Windows to prevent System-level commands from being run. On a UNIX box, if I'm signing on as me (non-admin type), then I can feel pretty good about general security. If I'm on a Windows box, I'm going to have to be double cautious with everything that crosses my email or my browser - whether I actively run it or not.
So I'd say he made some fallacies, but overall his point is more correct than the cries of "Well, there are less viruses on GNU/Linux and OS X because nobody runs it! Nyah!"
I don't mind playing a good LAN party game with people I know, but back when I was pretty good at Quake II, and started to try out MMRPG's like the "Ultima Online" beta, I realized that I just didn't enjoy playing the online games for one simple reason:
Most of the people online acted like assholes.
Too often, I'd log into a Quake/Quake II server, and get some punk calling me a MotherF---er because his team was losing at Capture the Flag. I got tired of Ultima Online when, during the beta, some jackass got in the way of the door and wouldn't let me walk out.
Diablo? Town killed by someone who thought it was fun to use the cheats to kill people.
On the whole, I tend to like the gamers I know in person and through my writings. But in online games, it seems that there are hordes of people who never learned to act above the age of 12, and need a good kick in the ass - or just never be allowed to play with anyone else online again.
It's probably the #1 reason why Nintendo still hasn't moved into online gaming in a big way (so far, Sega's Phantasy Star Online is their only online experience) - they don't want Jimmy's parents complaining about how their child got ragged on as a "Pikachu-f---er" during Pokemon Online.
The author's right - the penalities for "bad" behavior in an online format might work with some who have a community in the game, but for those who just want to be a dickhead, it's hard to do much other than ban them, since they have little emotionally wrapped up in the game.
Eh - just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
I can think of one good reason why I'd use this:
Just finding a old game is friggin' hard.
Even with Google, trying to find a ROM to an old game can take some time. But if I knew that I could go to a place where I could legally buy the ROM, know it was a good quality one and not full of a virus or weird messages or something, I'd have no problem plunking down $6 for a game.
I've been wondering how long it would take for some publishers to realize the potential profits. Is $10 a good price to play "Super Mario RPG"? How about to find a copy of "Chrono Trigger" (yes, I know it's out for the Playstation One, it's an example).
I still hope for a day where publishers will have older games to order on demand. I go to a website, pay $30 - $50, and I can get a newly minted working version of Panzer Dragoon Saga - it's selling on eBay for $150, and that's money the publisher isn't getting.
So I wish these guys all the luck, because I know I would use them if they have a game I wanted. Hey - they've got Klax! Cool!
Now to find an Atari emualtor for OS X....
One thing that companies outside the US (Germany, China, South Korea, South American nations, etc) is that employing Microsoft is really only good for Microsoft.
But by switching to Open Source for the government, there are several benefits that "trickle down":
1. Programmers within the specified nations are now employed, which keeps money inside the country.
2. The advances that come from Open Source software can be then used in businesses inside the country, which reduces there expenses, and if more development/administration is needed, they can look inside their own country rather than going elsewhere.
3. Exportability. If you have a country with top engineers in Open Source, and another country happens to need those, you are now in a better position to export those services.
I'm not quite with the "governments should make laws forcing Open Source down people's throats", but I am in support of measures that will give them control over their own software destiny.
Granted - as long as they play by the rules of the GPL, BSD, and other licenses.
Sorry to be a pain, but I had to ask:
Why do you feel the need to fill up your entire iPod with music?
I'm not trying to be annoying here, but why do people think "Oh, I have an [insert MP3 player here], and if songs are $1 each, that means I have to pay $2000 to make it useful!"
Huh? Why not buy the iPod (or other MP3 player), then either rip the music you already legally own, or buy it over time. You know - $10 a month or so.
Last time I checked, you don't have to fill up your MP3 player once you buy it, so I don't understand your argument that "$1 a song is too much because I have to spend all this money to fill up my MP3 player!"
So yeah, we screwed the pooch - but we might be back anyway!
On the one hand, I think that the RIAA has a legitimate issue with P2P services sharing their music.
Does that mean that I support the lawsuits? No - I think it's a civil end run around legitimate search and seizure. If I was the RIAA would I be using the lawsuits? No.
Personally, I'd take all the millions in lawyer fees and do something useful, like promote the iTunes Music Store, or pressure Sony and Buymusic.com to not suck more ass than a freshman prison inmate. I'd set up legitimate music downloading services based on Janis Ian's model, where all songs warehoused could be purchased for $1, or an album for $10. I'd set up 128 bit MP3's for $1, have 192 bit for maybe $1.25 - $1.50. Of that, 50% of the profit would go to the artist, 50% to the publisher. Note the word "profit" - it is assumed that the publishers would be taking a fair (bwahahaha - oh, sorry, I almost said that with a straight face) cut based on how much it costs a song to be stored in a central server and bandwidth costs (and that price should not go above $0.50 per song).
It should also be set up like Peanutpress.com, where once you buy a song, you can go back and download it again whenever you want, or can have it streamed wherever you are. (Since songs are much larger than eBooks usually, though, I can see some sort of minor "storage fee", like $0.01 per song per month - it should be your responsibility to back up your own stuff.)
And a quick note for the "$1 per song is too much", I'm sorry if you take this personally, but fuck you. $1 is perfectly legit for a song, $10 for a music album. If you're too damn cheap to pay any price at all for music, at least have the decency not to claim that the cost is too much. Just come out and say "I can't afford $1 after buying my $300 iPod!"
Then, and only then, if people were "sharing songs", then you could sue them, and I would feel you had done your due diligence in serving your customers and could have a solid leg to stand on for the lawsuits.
Isn't just that there are so many of them.
The great thing about standards, and having "open" systems, is that everybody is on fair ground. Why does Red Hat and Suse outsell their competition? Is it because they have some "secret extra" that locks in their customers?
Well, no (at least not for the most part). It's because of the other things they bring to support the standard, such as service, support, upgrades, developing to add to what has been done to make the "standard" easier to use.
So if China wants to base their software on Linux, more power to them - as long as they obey the GPL. If they make an improvement to make it easier to use Chinese characters on the command line, great - release it to everybody else. If they make a processor that works like Intel and they want to make it public, have a good time.
So I disagree with Mr. Barrett in principle that using regional standards is a "bad" thing - as long as those standards are published, realized by everybody, and don't have any hidden "gotchas".
What China will have to remember is the great thing about standards - there are so many of them. They (and by this I mean China's oppressive communist government) might think of some great standards, like "electrocute religious dissodents if they touch a computer". Or "file encryption systems must have a government backdoor at any time".
Because the rest of the world might not want to use that particular standard in their stuff. And if you have 75% of the world not using your standard, you either have to a) say you don't care (and make Mr. Barrett right), b) modify your standard, or c) join the rest of the world.
And if it turns out they're just taking the intellectual property of others - including Linux and yes, Intel - and not returning it to the group, they'll find that people will not be as interested in playing in their sandbox.
So have fun, China, and I hope to see some interesting new standards. I actually wish you luck if you decide you want to make your own processors and software, and if you truly want to make both open for all to use, have a good time.
A million fans are about to cry out in terror - and are suddenly silenced.
Episodes 4-6: I liked them. They were the cowboy fantasy with a tale to tell of redemption, growing into an adult, and the small, plucky rebellion beating the odds against an Empire of British accented bad guys.
Episodes 1-2? We've got some of the worst scripting that has ever happened. Episode 2 alone was nearly a black hole in a craptastic display that was barely saved by the precense of Ass Kickin' Yoda. (And it still had the stupid heroes who couldn't seem to figure out how to roll out of the way of a falling hunk of metal so Yoda had to save their dumb asses rather than taking out the "Bad Guy".)
So unless Episode 3 has a huge song and dance scene with a whole parade of digially generated Natalie Portmans in that super tight white Princess Leia like outfits singing "You Are My Sunshine", I'll just wait until it shows up as a special on Fox.
With plenty of commercial interruptions so I can have a time for hurlage.
Just take a look at this vision:
You already own a PS2 as "Joe Homeguy". You could go out and buy a new computer, but the guy at the store says "Well, just buy this Hard Drive upgrade for $200 for your PS2, and stick in this CD with Linux on it, and off you go".
So you take it home, and do that. You can surf the web, get your email, write up documents, and you're good. Want to play your games? Just shut it off (and you don't know it's using a journaled filesystem, so all of your files aren't ruined - and besides, it just stores the data on the hard drive, the OS "lives" on the CD you stick in).
Remove the Linux CD, stick in Metal Gear Solid 3/Kingdom Hearts/Disgaea (which is probably one of the best games this year) - and you're playing. You can even play online with the Broadband adapter in the back if you want.
Want to use the TV? No problem. You don't worry about upgrades - when the Linux Service, they send you a new disk every month, and it only costs $10 a year, and it includes demos of new games. Just stick in the disk, and you can do more 'stuff'.
This is the kind of thing that Linux in the home could be great for. And since there are 60,000,000 PS2's in the world, all with 99% similiar hardware, the Linux distribution wouldn't worry too much about compatibility - if you want something else to work, like a USB hard drive or a USB keychain storage media to transmit files between work/home (or that stores your basic settings, so you could go to a friends house and use their "computer" - I mean, PS2 to check your mail and 'stuff' if you like.
So I'd say Linux on the PS2 is just as important as working to make Gnome and KDE better. It gives a possible leverage that could avoid the desktop computer monopoly, by bypassing it altogether
Granted, I usually just get the ones from peanutpress.com (I'll forgo the link - you guys can cut 'n paste).
/. come from peanutpress.com libraries. And they're usually a few bucks cheaper than the meatspace versions anyway - and I don't waste a tree.
They fit on a Palm, I think Windows CE devices, and can even be read on a windows/OS X box. (No idea if Linux support is even offered, though I doubt it for some reason.)
My previous Palm Vx was a great eBook, and my Tungsten is even better. I can put it in a pocket, read on the train, toilet, and the rest. And they tend to have modern books (I'm about to break down and get Tad Williams "War of the Flowers".)
Most of the book reviews I've written for
Just my $0.02.
My main question is how would the ownership of the file be transferred?
At the moment, the Apple Store lets you "authorize" music files. So for this person, after the file had been "sold", he would have to deauthorize the up to 3 other computers that had been allowed to play the song, give a copy of the file to the buyer, then provide them with his Apple iTunes Store username/password so they could authorize it on their machine.
As he mentions, he could call up Apple and ask them to switch his authorization of the song to another user.
Either way, it does raise an interesting question, and as someone who has been using the iTunes Music Store, I've never thought about it: Suppose that years from now, I want to sell all my downloaded music files to someone else. Is there a way to transfer the license? What if I left them in a will to my children later on - could Apple be required to ensure that they could use the files later?
Or he's about to run into a massive "legal agreement" which will negate his First Sale ability - we'll just have to see what happens, neh?
My bad - forgive a person who's been using OS X for a year so hadn't kept up.
Though - having those decryption libraries would be nice too.
Does this mean that IBM could lobby to have Microsoft not considered? That Sun could lobby to get Apple banned from other meetings because they have a different set of Intellectual Property protection than what Buymusic.com has? (All right, bad example, but....)
It seems that the only way that some businesses (read: Microsoft) are able to keep up the pressure against Linux is by trying to do it with laws. Why don't we have an Open Source DVD player for Linux? Oh - well, the MPAA helped get a law passed that makes it basically illegal to create. Sorry about that, but that's just how it works.
Yes, I'm a little irritated, and if I discover that my local senator/congressman was involved in this in any way, they can expect a nastygram listed as "voting for the other guy come election day".
I find it interesting how the major players (aka "Microsoft") are trying to keep out their real competition. What if Open Source was part of the Intellectual Property decisions? Wouldn't that be a good thing for everybody if every OS supported Intellectual Property in a truly fair and just matter? Well, good for everyone except Microsoft - can't have a level playing field if we can keep the competition out, right?
What the articles are about is not about gaming journalism. Oh, they talk about games and writing and things that "real journalists" take for granted, like "fact checking" and "verifying information with sources" and the like.
What the articles are about is an awakening. Some people will say "What's the big deal - they're only games, why all the interest in how games are discussed?"
It's because I believe games are starting to reach a certain cusp. It's barely there, and underneath the rush to make the next Murder Death Killer and Massive Movie Franchise Game Version and Hey Kids, Here's a Bright Light - there are stirrings of something different happening.
Some games are getting shorter, like "Silent Hill 3", and some developers are starting to use words like "mood", "emotion", "art". We have people like an interview with series producer, Keisuke Kikuchi for Fatal Frame 2 have this moment in an interview:
Why are game developers talking about beauty? Everybody knows that games are just for teenage kids and immature grownups who just want to get their kicks and watch big breasted girls bouncing about!
The articles at insertcredit.com are talking about a new need that is going unfilled - the need to have games thought about, talked about, researched about, and written about in an intelligent way. Still funny at times, not at others, but they're talking about a desire to have games written about with the same care and attention as a movie, a painting, as an NPR show talking music CDs and the trends and how one piece of music gets its inspiration from something else.
Games are becoming art. Oh, not yet - I'd say we're still 20 years away before the industry settles down. Like movies, there will always be the big budget big explosion big breasted girl games that appeal to a lot of people. But there will be more games like "Ico" that are just beautiful and haunting. Or games that that will do for interactive entertainment what "Saving Private Ryan" or "Momento" or "Gone with the Wind" has done in movies, or "War of the Worlds" for radio.
We're still on the cusp of this idea. But I think insertcredit's articles today are a part of that idea that were moving from "games are just fun!" to "games should be taken a little more seriously and a little more professionaly."
Eh - or I could be totally missing the point. But that's just my opinion on the matter.
I'm trying to imagine how miserable shooting that scene in the rain was, especially when you realize it probably wasn't done on the first take.
Wearing all those clothes, which are sopping wet, and that water ruining the shoes, getting into the socks, and you've got to run in it -
Granted, I'm sure the actors got a great paycheck out of it. But every time I watch them running in the rain, I can't help but feel for those poor, wrinkled little toes encased in shoes that are screaming "No - keep the mold away! Save us, Gold Bond!"
Japan has pitched an idea to create in 30 years a a robot with the capacity of a 5 year old child. The idea struck a cord in me, and I decided to take a break and just think on that.
Let's define the nature of the ultimate goal in robots in the business - I'm sure there will be quibbles, but this is my definition:
Ultimate Goal: To create a robot with human level intelligence and physical manipulation without sentience or self awareness.
By this definition, we mean the capacity to learn, to be instructed in tasks and incorporate ideas into itself and understand commands without detail, but without sentience or self awareness, never having emotions or being able to make fully independant decisions about freedom, what to do for itself.
In a word, the ultimate metal slave.
Let's throw ethics out the window for a moment - we'll get to those in a minute. But let's say you could make such a machine. One that you could give orders to "go clean the house", and it would intelligently understand and fulfill your wish without the "evil genie" effect (where a badly ruled wish has unintended consequences - see "The Monkey's Paw" for an example, where you could wish for a million dollars, and you would get it - after your son was killed in an automobile accident and the money was payment from a life insurance policy).
Ignoring if such a goal is possible (and, seeing how far we've come in 100 years, is it so far to reach that in 500 years we would be capable of building such a machine?), let's see what would happen to society.
Employees, especially blue collar, farmers, manufacturing and the like, could be mass produced. A whole army of robots that would work without tire, without pay, and if you could make them mass produced to be cheap (say $20,000 - $40,000 a year), if they break, get a new one. They could work day and night, rotating in 8-12 hour shifts for maintenance and repairs. Farms could be worked all day long, and if there was a problem, robots could go out and fix the issue. Need to pick the cotton/coffee beans? Just hire the robots to go out and do it. Wars fought by machines - never tiring, truly "bloodless" wars where a million "soldiers" could be airdropped into the field loaded with advanced weapons to wipe out the enemy by beings that have no conscience. (Granted, hacking would truly become the greatest weapon in society at that point, but just go with me a moment on the idea.)
Food prices, car prices - hell, prices for everything could actually drop, since the human cost of making them would be negligable. Ah - but for one major problem:
What do the people do?
Millions - let's even say 25% of the work force alone, just to argue - out of work. They're not needed at McDonald's or Ford or even Dell - replaced by machines. So what do they do? Not everybody could work in a robot making factory. Does the world start to become a place where human labor is practically no longer required? Where only a few work because they want to to design new things or create art, while millions simply live a life of leisure? Where everyone is guarunteed a certain level of life and comfort, and those who want more can sell their services of entertainment or some unique idea they are able to create in this new utopia of fully attained basic life for all people?
Or a world where millions can not get work and search but become homeless? If people think that having jobs from their country exported to foreign places willing to do it for less, how will they feel when the factory is still on native soil, but the jobs are for those tireless, non-paid, non-complaining machines? When they can't provide for their children, and the line between "haves" and "have-nots" is larger than ever?
I actually see a lot of promise in the idea - I really do. The benefits to business, to humanity could be huge. But I have the feeling should such a creation actua
No, the boy bands aren't beginning to fail because they are created not by people who simply love music, but created to fit a specific formula to have mass appeal with lyrics that mean nothing.
Or the media singing creations like Britney and Christine are suffering a backlash and lower CD sales because their listeners are beginning to recognize them not as artists, but as glammed up beauty queens made to appeal to the most common denominator.
Movies aren't failing because they have canned stories that can be anticipated by a 5 year old, from the "Ultra-pretty female scientist who never picks up a bunson burner" to the "totally evil corporate guy that you cheer when he dies though you know it's coming the first time he does something so impossibly stupidly evil you know he wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real business world".
No, it's not because more people - not all, and in some cases, not enough - are beginning to tell their friends "Hey - you know [Insert Movie Here]? It's not that great. Yeah, don't see it." because the movie really isn't that great - it must be because they're bypassing the marketing system that is meant to polish shit and sell it as gold.
I'm really not too concerned, because in the end, "money talks and bullshit walks". The now gone Filthy Critic may have been a foul mouth bastard - but he was usually pretty spot on about calling a turd a turd, and giving praise when it was deserved. Compared to many "movie critics" who sound like paid whores (or, in the infamous Sony case, are totally made up to give bad movies a good name **cough**Freddy Got Fingered**cough**.
Word of mouth of viewers is becoming more powerful all the time. Look how low budget movies like "Bend it like Beckham" are doing better than expected thanks to word of mouth (which I actually thought was pretty good - though I can't figure out why all the ads feature the white girl Jules as the main attraction when she's not the main character).
If we're lucky, movie studios will realize that it makes more money to make a really good movie that people will want to talk about and recommend to their friends - than have sloppy, lazy writing that doesn't really entertain - it just numbs.
Eh - but that's my own take on recent movies. I could be wrong.
Or simply for every non-Outlook/Outlook Express/Windows based email client that doesn't automatically open .pif attachments.
In my case, thank you OS X Mail - and it's lickable! (Ugh - I should have cleaned the bug juice off my screen before doing that.)
Actually, all I want is to:
1. Make phone calls.
2. The "walkie-talkie" feature so I can call my wife any time of the day when I'm out of town, and not get roaming/long distance bill.
That's pretty much all I care for. Don't want games (my NES emulator on my Palm and my GBA fill that bill), internet/email (nothing against others - but I can't use a little screen), text messaging (if I want IRC sex, I'll do it without cramping my thumbs to death).
I've been using Apples ITMS for a bit - and I'm actually surprised that when I go to buy some music (like BB King or a classical CD or Live), I will often make sure it's in an album.
At first, it was just the opposite - I just wanted one song. But now that I've got those "one songs off the CD I really wanted" out of my system, more often than not I'll say "You know, I've never really listened to Bjork, though I remember liking that one song on MTV a kabillion years ago with the bear - maybe I'll just pay the $10 for the whole CD - because if I pay $1 and pick the wrong song, then I'll wind up paying over $10 to get the others".
I'm not sure if it makes much sense, but I'm finding I'm buying the album to save money (especially if said album, like the BB King album I picked up has 18 tracks to it - at $9.99, that turned out to be a bargain).
Let's not kid ourselves: for all of Microsoft's talk of "innovation", the one thing they're really good at is seeing another idea that works, making their own version of it, then making it "good enough" that their desktop monopoly can make money off of it.
So, let's take a look at their new music service:
Media Type: Windows Media Audio 9.
The Good: No big surprise, and depending on who you ask, it sounds better than MP3's at the same format. Anybody with either a new computer or someone who upgrades to Windows Media Player 9 should have it work just fine.
The Bad: Nobody but a Windows user can use it. But since the other big competitor Apple only lets it work with Macs, that means that a 4% user base is now hitting against a 90% user base - so it's all balanced in the end, I guess. Apple should have their service in Windows at the end of this year, and Windows Media Player 9 should be available "someday" for OS X, so then we can compare apples to apples (no pun intended).
Depending on who you ask, Apple's use of AAC isn't really a full open standard, since they've got the security hooks inside - but it's a far more open standard than WMA (Windows Media Audio). Any chance we'll see either one on Linux? Anyone? Guys?
The License:
The Good: No subscription fee, which I think is the #1 draw of the new music formats. Most of the songs are around 0.99 euros, which comes out to be $1.15 or so per track. And you can copy some to your portable players or burn CD tracks with them.
The Bad: So far, this is where Apple's service is kicking the other two's services right in the Jimmy. Apple's system is cut and dried: Every song, up to 3 computers, unlimited iPods, unlimited CD burns.
With Buymusic.com and Microsoft's service - it depends on the song. Maybe you can put it in a portable, maybe not. Maybe you can burn it, maybe not. So that means before you buy each song you'll have to either say "Well, I will only play these songs on this computer forever!", or say "Hm - let's see what the license is before I make my Ultimate Dance Track for the Anime Pool Party this Saturday.".
It's something the "average joe" won't care about - until one day, they go to do something, and don't understand why Song A can be copied/burned, but Song B can not. Will Apple use this in their marketing? Who knows - and odds are, people won't think enough to care.
The Selection:
The Good: 200,000 songs to start off with.
The Bad: No clue - I haven't seen the line up.
Final score:
Undecided. Microsoft's new music service looks more like BuyMusic.com's, only it's in Europe. Same media format, same licensing structure - only it's going to be inside the Windows Media Player and not just a web page for downloading.
Odds are, Apple's service will still be better with the "one license for every track" rule. But as history has shown, Micorosoft does not necessarily have to be "better" than the competition - usually "good enough" will do to make them money.
Either way, if Apple wants to get the bucks before competitor #1 eats the market, it needs to get its ass moving on its Windows service and those deals in Europe.
Assuming that the individual is in decent health and not a 200 year old husk of skin kept alive by machines - I think I know what I would do with immortality:
1. Finally finish Xenogears (which, after over 6 months of playing, I'm still working on. How long is this game, anyway?)
2. Try every possible combination of Jelly Belly Jelly Beans. (Hm - Mint Pineapple Peanut Butter - yup, that sucks. Check off the list. Now lets try Vanilla Chocolate Pepper! No...)
3. Recreate the movie Gone with the Wind frame for frame using my specially trained gerbels. (Once I figure out how little Rett is going to carry Scarlet up the little mouse stairs.)
4. See Sakura Taisen finally ported to English, or barring that, have the universal translator chip implanted into my brain.
5. Watch Neon Genesis Evangelion and have the final episodes of the TV series plus the two movies actually make some sense.
Wahahahaha! Oh, I'm kidding - EVA make sense. My bad.
6. Finally shoot Pac-Man: The Movie.
7. Go to space. With my wife. Close the hatch for some privacy. Get our space freak on to the music of "Thus Spoke Zarathrusta" (the 2001 music) for our own "docking manuevers".
Just some ideas off the top of my head to do with immortaility.