According to Maxis' own website, I typed my search terms just fine:
http://www.maxis.com/about/about_timeline1.php In fact, "SimAnt" is consistent with the manner in which Maxis named all of its "Sim" games, with the exception of "The Sims", i.e. SimEarth, SimGolf, SimCity, etc.
The other day, a friend and I were using google to try and locate sites that had a demo of simant (actually, we were hoping for a free download, but that didn't happen). Using the terms "+simant+download", I was rather dismayed to see that the vast majority of results were PORN sites that used the term simant in their keywords. I'm all for freedom of the internet, but if you can't be responsible enough to be honest about what your site contains, you really don't deserve the freedom. What I saw was just plain pathetic, and I don't think I'd be against a law that forbid this kind of misleading characterization of content.
There's still one major difference - M$ is driven by the almighty dollar, while Linux is driven by people who want to do what's right. Further, with Microsoft, you not only upgrade your software, but most likely, your EULA as well (and no telling what kind of nastiness). With Linux, you have no such worries.
hypothetical interface redesigns by a group of artists and graphic designers.
All one has to do is look at all the relatively useless flash-driven drivel on the web, and realize that artists and graphic designers are not all acquainted with the notion of usability. The one thing I truly like about google is its VERY functional simplicity.
In order to offer 911 service, a telephone system must (at least theoetically) offer a gauranteed degree of reliability. After all, what good is an ability to dial 911 if your computer isn't functioning, or there's a network outage, or the packets are being blocked or dorked with by some router on the net? There's big difference here between the internet (a huge, shared network), and a telco, where they own, operate, and control their own facility, the end user's phone jack, and everything in between. This level of control allows the telco to make this kind of guarantee, whereas I'd have a hard time believing that a VOIP provider, which controls only their own gateways/gatekeepers, can provide same level of service - there are simply too many variables involved.
That's your definition. First, legally, theft is defined however it's defined. For example - how can a "service" be stolen? It can. If you back your car up to someone else's dumpster and unload your trash, that's exactly what you're doing, and depending on the locality, the law will say so. If it's my dumpster, it doesn't deprive me of anything, it just means that your getting service you didn't pay for. How is stealing music any different?
Second, your definition completely overlooks the fact that when you take something like music (that's a copy of the original), you are acquiring benefit and/or value from someone else's property- WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. That's theft.
Just last week I had to purchase a new computer case, because I essentially disabled the old, HUGE tower case that came with my Pentium 90. A quick jaunt on the web revealed that my local CompUSA had some OK cases for about $30. I walk in, and ask one of the only two sales people around where their computer cases were. I get a blank stare and a question, "Cases? What do you mean?". Someone working with her asked me, "Oh, do you mean like the chassis?" I think, "yeah, if that's what gets me the case I'm looking for."
After finding the case, during checkout the checker couldn't get the radio tag disabled for the alarm at the door. She called the doorman over, and he took the case, ran it through another of those "disabling" thingies, and told me all was well. I was on my way.
My friend goes to the same store a day later and asked a question about heat sinks. He got blank stares from four different people until finally, their "tech guy" (the guy in the white lab coat) knew what he was talking about- but still couldn't answer his question. As he walked out the door, he struck up a conversation with the doorman about the fan that he'd purchased. Turns out, the guy at the door probably knew far more about this stuff than anyone on the floor. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the people on the floor were the ones with the certificates (or just an ability to BS real well) while the guy at the door just had a passion for the technology. Talk about a complete HR screwup.
I can see running away as evasion. The best scenario might be to stay with the officer for as long has he/she cares to detain you. If you're arrested for failing to produce an ID (with no probable cause for asking in the first place), I'm guessing there might be sufficient legal grounds to file a civil action.
lmao, well I'm sure there's a place for you working with the RIAA if your not already working there;
I'm no fan of the RIAA- I think what they do is detestable. Be that as it may, I do not think that anyone can rationally justify the mental gymnastics that people use to support their notion that taking and using property that is rightfully owned by the RIAA without permission or due compensation, is in any way, right. It isn't. The only thing that makes it easy to do this (but no more correct) is the fact that the property in question is easily reproduced. No one seems to realize that the method of reproduction has no bearing on one's perceived right to someone else's property.
Fair use is exactly that - as long as I don't sell copies I've made,
Fair use is citing a sentence or two, or perhaps even a passage, in an effort to illustrate a point (and providing due credit to its author). Fair use is copying an article for use in an educational setting (like a classroom). Fair use is making a backup copy of your software (or your video, or DVD) so that you still have it available if the original fails. Fair use is being able to accommodate medium and time shifting. Copying a CD, movie, or DVD, and handing it out to your friends has nothing to do with fair use.
Anyway, nice debating with you but you must realize that one or two generations from now our grandchildren and their grandchildren will judge us for our lack of action on this and why we allowed this freedom to be trodden over.
If they're at all enlightened, they'll sit back and wonder why everyone was so lazy - why they didn't use the freedom they had immediately at their disposal - the power they wield over their own wallets as consumers. They'll wonder why the consumer public allowed this rediculous charade of co-dependency to continue on for as long as it has. They'll wonder why the freedom they had was taken completely forgranted.
Griffith's patent-pending device essentially eliminates these problems.
While I'd truly agree that this is innovative, and definitely worth a patent, I can't help but wonder whether the patent will remain under Griffith's control, and for, as the summary suggests, humanitarian purposes. I hope that 5 years from now we're not seeing Microsoft Eyeglass v1.0, available only on a heavily DRM'ed machine, and only via a huge annual licensing fee.
The RIAA liars claimed monetary losses that pushed laws to be written without any thought to the dissolution to our Constitutional rights and you need to ask why it matters? Please.
Whether the RIAA's claims of losses were legitimate or not is irrelevant. The fact is that you have no right to enjoy the benefit of their property unless you agree to their terms. Don't like the terms? Don't listen to the music.
The concept of fair use 'was' simple. I buy a cd, I copy my cd, I give you and others a copy at 'no charge' and based on that lack of charge there's no violation of fair use.
Give others a copy? I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with notion of fair use. There's nothing fair about giving away someone else's property.
Reality is, I'm not in the market to purchase the music I might download on a p2p program anyway, so it wouldn't matter if I downloaded one song or every song ever recorded the RIAA and the myriad of other music groups etc would never have lost a penny because of it because quite plainly I would not be spending money on media one way or the other.
Why does this matter? The point is that if you don't pay, you have no right whatsoever to enjoy any benefit or value it may provide.
I recently came across a few papers, etc., dealing with what is being called 'Willingness to Pay.' What has been found is very much in line with what we all know: most people 'stealing' music/software don't get enough utility from the 'product' to buy it.
Odd, it's only software and digital media that afford this as an "option". You see, the irony here is that if you don't get enough utility and/or value from a car, you don't buy it - and it remains the property of its owner. Many people use this rationalization to lessen their guilt when it comes to IP theft- they don't buy it because it's not "useful" enough, but they go on to repeatedly use it/listen to it/watch it anyway.
That, and a newspaper reporter uncovering that one guy was still behind the wheel after being arrested 27 times for DWI.
This alone says more about the problem than anything else I've seen. The only thing we're seeing here is a spectacular failure of the legal system in getting and keeping this guy off the road.
Think about it. Let's say that by 2008, all new cars need to have the built-in breatholysers. How many people so inclined to drink and drive will have a new car? Do you have any idea how many older model cars are still on the road today? Even if someone with a newer car is inclined to drink and drive, do you think for a minute that they're going to be the least bit concerned about disabling the device?
This law does only one thing - it places the utter failure of the legal system on the shoulders of law-abiding citizens by unconstitutionally restricting their freedom. I expect to see this law tossed into the ever-growing chasm of stupid human tricks.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
It's theft. It's acquiring and enjoying the value inherent in the song that you listen to, produced through the creative effort of someone else, without permission or due compensation. There IS an imbalance here that leaves one party with an unwarranted and unfair advantage over the other. Whether it's called theft, piracy, or whatever, there needs to be some means of protection in place, and very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong, and that there are remedies (including consequences).
How can a comment not be a troll if it claims there's no way games could innovate if given fast connections?
Am I not seeing things here? I don't recall ever making such a comment. I might also point out your implication that just because somethins is innovative, it will magically be guaranteed success in the marketplace. Sorry, but that doesn't happen.
Trying to keep the game playable over a modem is one of the major bottlenecks in online gaming today.
There are constraints no matter what. Even if you get past the modem connections because everyone has higher bandwidth, you still need the infrastructure on the provider's side to support that increase in bandwidth, presumably, for the same number of players.
Any modern computer can handle a lot more than 10K. And by "modern" I mean built in the last 20 years. 10K is nothing
In and of itself, that's true. But the 5K stream for current games does something. It carries information telling the player's software what to do. If you increase the stream to 10K, you're piling on twice the amount of information that has to be processed in order to be of any use. That's quite a bit different than a raw 10K stream.
Those are MMORPGs. Everything in the genre charges a monthly fee. If you want to talk about increasing fees on games that don't charge more than once already, you should be talking about things like Xbox Live versus Battle.net.
If you want to limit your understanding to such a narrowly-defined scope, that's fine. I'm talking about revenue models.
I agree this isn't likely to create many jobs other than temporary construction work, but if his vision came to pass we would see the near 100% penetration rates because by definition everyone would have a connection.
And certainly, all of those glorious predictions would come to pass. NOT.
That is a real threat, but for this, it's better if the government builds the network-the corporations don't own the medium, so it's much harder for them to lock out competitors, abuse customers, and act like monopolies.
That option comes with its owns set of problems - especially with a government hurling itself further and further toward a surveillance/police state.
No offense, but I'd say that your quality of life is one of the benefits you weigh against having access to things like high-speed internet. Those who live in the city not only have to pay so that you can have access to such niceties, but they ALSO have to wrestle with higher crime rates, more noise, etc. Sounds like people in rural areas want to have their cake and eat it too.
It's ill-conceived. He makes a lot of statements that are merely conjecture, and that completely sidestep reality. For example:
This network would be optimally efficient. It would be a platform for new innovative services, such as rich interactive gaming.
We already have rich, interactive gaming. And ironically, the more "rich" and "interactive," the more it will cost- not just a "buy once play as many times as you want," but "but once, and keep paying" a la Planetside, Everquest, the upcoming World of Warcraft, etc. Further, it's not going to be cheap to install and maintain the infrastructure necessary to support "rich" and "interactive" gaming- for either side. Even if you had a network that could handle whatever you throw at it, say, a stream of 10K vs the typical 5K for an online multiplayer game, it won't do any good if the indivdual's computer can't handle it.
It would greatly increase e-commerce, producing higher gdp.
Nice thought, but he says nothing about how this would actually happen.
It would create new jobs in the United States.
See above.
It would ensure broadcast penetration at nearly 100%, local voice penetration at nearly 100%, and push Internet access at least to 90% if not 100%.
See above.
The other thing he neglects to mention is that a significant part of the cost of certain broadband services are derived from fees and taxes. That will not change merely because the method of delivery has changed. Another real downside is that as providers gain and weild more and more control over what travels across those wires, I see the potential that everything will be commoditized - down to the individual protocol.
If I remember correctly, even though QuickDraw wasn't anywhere near the entire OS, it *was* the underpinning of the user interface, it's the user interface that made the Macintosh what it was. Add to this, that some of the code was purported to be quite innovative, and there was a source for concern.
The CD itself probably costs less than $0.21 to manufacture. What it boils down to is this: the music industry (and all of its lined pockets) want, pure and simple, a welfare program that's tailored specifically to them. And they have it. Hope all these CEOs feel good about being on the public dole.
If this happens in the US, it will be a blatant violation of due process, as such a tax implicitly accuses, tries, convicts, and sentences someone without ANY indication that they've even so much as THOUGHT about copying something.
I don't think Comcast will be any less relentless and when it comes to laws that "protect" IP. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast started including a nice little ToS with every opportunity to view a Disney feature.
The more Microsoft continues to integrate, the more it sets its customers up for even greater degrees of security risk. As vuruses and and other maladies continue to plague the Windows OS, people will begin to see the light - bigger and more bloated is not always better, no matter how tightly "integrated" it is.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Maxis' own website, I typed my search terms just fine:
http://www.maxis.com/about/about_timeline1.php
In fact, "SimAnt" is consistent with the manner in which Maxis named all of its "Sim" games, with the exception of "The Sims", i.e. SimEarth, SimGolf, SimCity, etc.
The other day, a friend and I were using google to try and locate sites that had a demo of simant (actually, we were hoping for a free download, but that didn't happen). Using the terms "+simant+download", I was rather dismayed to see that the vast majority of results were PORN sites that used the term simant in their keywords. I'm all for freedom of the internet, but if you can't be responsible enough to be honest about what your site contains, you really don't deserve the freedom. What I saw was just plain pathetic, and I don't think I'd be against a law that forbid this kind of misleading characterization of content.
There's still one major difference - M$ is driven by the almighty dollar, while Linux is driven by people who want to do what's right. Further, with Microsoft, you not only upgrade your software, but most likely, your EULA as well (and no telling what kind of nastiness). With Linux, you have no such worries.
hypothetical interface redesigns by a group of artists and graphic designers.
All one has to do is look at all the relatively useless flash-driven drivel on the web, and realize that artists and graphic designers are not all acquainted with the notion of usability. The one thing I truly like about google is its VERY functional simplicity.
In order to offer 911 service, a telephone system must (at least theoetically) offer a gauranteed degree of reliability. After all, what good is an ability to dial 911 if your computer isn't functioning, or there's a network outage, or the packets are being blocked or dorked with by some router on the net? There's big difference here between the internet (a huge, shared network), and a telco, where they own, operate, and control their own facility, the end user's phone jack, and everything in between. This level of control allows the telco to make this kind of guarantee, whereas I'd have a hard time believing that a VOIP provider, which controls only their own gateways/gatekeepers, can provide same level of service - there are simply too many variables involved.
That's your definition. First, legally, theft is defined however it's defined. For example - how can a "service" be stolen? It can. If you back your car up to someone else's dumpster and unload your trash, that's exactly what you're doing, and depending on the locality, the law will say so. If it's my dumpster, it doesn't deprive me of anything, it just means that your getting service you didn't pay for. How is stealing music any different?
Second, your definition completely overlooks the fact that when you take something like music (that's a copy of the original), you are acquiring benefit and/or value from someone else's property- WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. That's theft.
Just last week I had to purchase a new computer case, because I essentially disabled the old, HUGE tower case that came with my Pentium 90. A quick jaunt on the web revealed that my local CompUSA had some OK cases for about $30. I walk in, and ask one of the only two sales people around where their computer cases were. I get a blank stare and a question, "Cases? What do you mean?". Someone working with her asked me, "Oh, do you mean like the chassis?" I think, "yeah, if that's what gets me the case I'm looking for."
After finding the case, during checkout the checker couldn't get the radio tag disabled for the alarm at the door. She called the doorman over, and he took the case, ran it through another of those "disabling" thingies, and told me all was well. I was on my way.
My friend goes to the same store a day later and asked a question about heat sinks. He got blank stares from four different people until finally, their "tech guy" (the guy in the white lab coat) knew what he was talking about- but still couldn't answer his question. As he walked out the door, he struck up a conversation with the doorman about the fan that he'd purchased. Turns out, the guy at the door probably knew far more about this stuff than anyone on the floor. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the people on the floor were the ones with the certificates (or just an ability to BS real well) while the guy at the door just had a passion for the technology. Talk about a complete HR screwup.
I can see running away as evasion. The best scenario might be to stay with the officer for as long has he/she cares to detain you. If you're arrested for failing to produce an ID (with no probable cause for asking in the first place), I'm guessing there might be sufficient legal grounds to file a civil action.
lmao, well I'm sure there's a place for you working with the RIAA if your not already working there;
I'm no fan of the RIAA- I think what they do is detestable. Be that as it may, I do not think that anyone can rationally justify the mental gymnastics that people use to support their notion that taking and using property that is rightfully owned by the RIAA without permission or due compensation, is in any way, right. It isn't. The only thing that makes it easy to do this (but no more correct) is the fact that the property in question is easily reproduced. No one seems to realize that the method of reproduction has no bearing on one's perceived right to someone else's property.
Fair use is exactly that - as long as I don't sell copies I've made,
Fair use is citing a sentence or two, or perhaps even a passage, in an effort to illustrate a point (and providing due credit to its author). Fair use is copying an article for use in an educational setting (like a classroom). Fair use is making a backup copy of your software (or your video, or DVD) so that you still have it available if the original fails. Fair use is being able to accommodate medium and time shifting. Copying a CD, movie, or DVD, and handing it out to your friends has nothing to do with fair use.
Anyway, nice debating with you but you must realize that one or two generations from now our grandchildren and their grandchildren will judge us for our lack of action on this and why we allowed this freedom to be trodden over.
If they're at all enlightened, they'll sit back and wonder why everyone was so lazy - why they didn't use the freedom they had immediately at their disposal - the power they wield over their own wallets as consumers. They'll wonder why the consumer public allowed this rediculous charade of co-dependency to continue on for as long as it has. They'll wonder why the freedom they had was taken completely forgranted.
Griffith's patent-pending device essentially eliminates these problems.
While I'd truly agree that this is innovative, and definitely worth a patent, I can't help but wonder whether the patent will remain under Griffith's control, and for, as the summary suggests, humanitarian purposes. I hope that 5 years from now we're not seeing Microsoft Eyeglass v1.0, available only on a heavily DRM'ed machine, and only via a huge annual licensing fee.
The RIAA liars claimed monetary losses that pushed laws to be written without any thought to the dissolution to our Constitutional rights and you need to ask why it matters? Please.
Whether the RIAA's claims of losses were legitimate or not is irrelevant. The fact is that you have no right to enjoy the benefit of their property unless you agree to their terms. Don't like the terms? Don't listen to the music.
The concept of fair use 'was' simple. I buy a cd, I copy my cd, I give you and others a copy at 'no charge' and based on that lack of charge there's no violation of fair use.
Give others a copy? I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with notion of fair use. There's nothing fair about giving away someone else's property.
Reality is, I'm not in the market to purchase the music I might download on a p2p program anyway, so it wouldn't matter if I downloaded one song or every song ever recorded the RIAA and the myriad of other music groups etc would never have lost a penny because of it because quite plainly I would not be spending money on media one way or the other.
Why does this matter? The point is that if you don't pay, you have no right whatsoever to enjoy any benefit or value it may provide.
I recently came across a few papers, etc., dealing with what is being called 'Willingness to Pay.' What has been found is very much in line with what we all know: most people 'stealing' music/software don't get enough utility from the 'product' to buy it.
Odd, it's only software and digital media that afford this as an "option". You see, the irony here is that if you don't get enough utility and/or value from a car, you don't buy it - and it remains the property of its owner. Many people use this rationalization to lessen their guilt when it comes to IP theft- they don't buy it because it's not "useful" enough, but they go on to repeatedly use it/listen to it/watch it anyway.
That, and a newspaper reporter uncovering that one guy was still behind the wheel after being arrested 27 times for DWI.
This alone says more about the problem than anything else I've seen. The only thing we're seeing here is a spectacular failure of the legal system in getting and keeping this guy off the road.
Think about it. Let's say that by 2008, all new cars need to have the built-in breatholysers. How many people so inclined to drink and drive will have a new car? Do you have any idea how many older model cars are still on the road today? Even if someone with a newer car is inclined to drink and drive, do you think for a minute that they're going to be the least bit concerned about disabling the device?
This law does only one thing - it places the utter failure of the legal system on the shoulders of law-abiding citizens by unconstitutionally restricting their freedom. I expect to see this law tossed into the ever-growing chasm of stupid human tricks.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
It's theft. It's acquiring and enjoying the value inherent in the song that you listen to, produced through the creative effort of someone else, without permission or due compensation. There IS an imbalance here that leaves one party with an unwarranted and unfair advantage over the other. Whether it's called theft, piracy, or whatever, there needs to be some means of protection in place, and very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong, and that there are remedies (including consequences).
How can a comment not be a troll if it claims there's no way games could innovate if given fast connections?
Am I not seeing things here? I don't recall ever making such a comment. I might also point out your implication that just because somethins is innovative, it will magically be guaranteed success in the marketplace. Sorry, but that doesn't happen.
Trying to keep the game playable over a modem is one of the major bottlenecks in online gaming today.
There are constraints no matter what. Even if you get past the modem connections because everyone has higher bandwidth, you still need the infrastructure on the provider's side to support that increase in bandwidth, presumably, for the same number of players.
Any modern computer can handle a lot more than 10K. And by "modern" I mean built in the last 20 years. 10K is nothing
In and of itself, that's true. But the 5K stream for current games does something. It carries information telling the player's software what to do. If you increase the stream to 10K, you're piling on twice the amount of information that has to be processed in order to be of any use. That's quite a bit different than a raw 10K stream.
Those are MMORPGs. Everything in the genre charges a monthly fee. If you want to talk about increasing fees on games that don't charge more than once already, you should be talking about things like Xbox Live versus Battle.net.
If you want to limit your understanding to such a narrowly-defined scope, that's fine. I'm talking about revenue models.
I agree this isn't likely to create many jobs other than temporary construction work, but if his vision came to pass we would see the near 100% penetration rates because by definition everyone would have a connection.
And certainly, all of those glorious predictions would come to pass. NOT.
That is a real threat, but for this, it's better if the government builds the network-the corporations don't own the medium, so it's much harder for them to lock out competitors, abuse customers, and act like monopolies.
That option comes with its owns set of problems - especially with a government hurling itself further and further toward a surveillance/police state.
No offense, but I'd say that your quality of life is one of the benefits you weigh against having access to things like high-speed internet. Those who live in the city not only have to pay so that you can have access to such niceties, but they ALSO have to wrestle with higher crime rates, more noise, etc. Sounds like people in rural areas want to have their cake and eat it too.
It's ill-conceived. He makes a lot of statements that are merely conjecture, and that completely sidestep reality. For example:
This network would be optimally efficient. It would be a platform for new innovative services, such as rich interactive gaming.
We already have rich, interactive gaming. And ironically, the more "rich" and "interactive," the more it will cost- not just a "buy once play as many times as you want," but "but once, and keep paying" a la Planetside, Everquest, the upcoming World of Warcraft, etc. Further, it's not going to be cheap to install and maintain the infrastructure necessary to support "rich" and "interactive" gaming- for either side. Even if you had a network that could handle whatever you throw at it, say, a stream of 10K vs the typical 5K for an online multiplayer game, it won't do any good if the indivdual's computer can't handle it.
It would greatly increase e-commerce, producing higher gdp.
Nice thought, but he says nothing about how this would actually happen.
It would create new jobs in the United States.
See above.
It would ensure broadcast penetration
at nearly 100%, local voice penetration at nearly 100%, and push Internet access at least to 90% if not 100%.
See above.
The other thing he neglects to mention is that a significant part of the cost of certain broadband services are derived from fees and taxes. That will not change merely because the method of delivery has changed. Another real downside is that as providers gain and weild more and more control over what travels across those wires, I see the potential that everything will be commoditized - down to the individual protocol.
That's criminal.
If I remember correctly, even though QuickDraw wasn't anywhere near the entire OS, it *was* the underpinning of the user interface, it's the user interface that made the Macintosh what it was. Add to this, that some of the code was purported to be quite innovative, and there was a source for concern.
The CD itself probably costs less than $0.21 to manufacture. What it boils down to is this: the music industry (and all of its lined pockets) want, pure and simple, a welfare program that's tailored specifically to them. And they have it. Hope all these CEOs feel good about being on the public dole.
If this happens in the US, it will be a blatant violation of due process, as such a tax implicitly accuses, tries, convicts, and sentences someone without ANY indication that they've even so much as THOUGHT about copying something.
Sweeps week.
I don't think Comcast will be any less relentless and when it comes to laws that "protect" IP. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast started including a nice little ToS with every opportunity to view a Disney feature.
The more Microsoft continues to integrate, the more it sets its customers up for even greater degrees of security risk. As vuruses and and other maladies continue to plague the Windows OS, people will begin to see the light - bigger and more bloated is not always better, no matter how tightly "integrated" it is.
I don't WANT them "targeting" me...if I NEED something, I'll go out and find it.