Wait... Microsoft manufactures cheapo consoles out of commondity parts, only to tinker each damn dvd drive to only accept certain types of discs?
Is this a fact? I think it would me more plausible to assume they just cut one too many corner on the way and got a batch of lousy drives.
I don't know if it's fact but I do know an acceptable fix for a broken Xbox DVDROM is to open the case, find the little potentiometer that controls the laser strength, and give it a quarter turn clockwise. Works like a charm after that.
I want to play as much as anyone, but we've all known for some time that the release date is the 16th. They aren't doing anything wrong.
I disagree. I think it's very wrong. It might be legal. It might even be common industry practise. But it's definitely wrong.
This isn't activation for network play, or to access their servers. This is activation for the single-player version. What happens when Vivendi goes bankrupt? And they will go bankrupt because this is the gaming industry! Suddenly all of the games cease to function. That's simply retarded. They're purposefully putting timebombs on their software. You've paid for a license but they can revoke your right to use it at any time. That's WRONG.
Software activation is simply another example of the failure to maintain a balance between owner and user rights. I'm waiting for the backlash but comments like yours indicate that might never happen; even the supposedly educated community is largely complacent!
Nope. The iPod made its way to the top by being *simple*. No useless features. No features that *sort-of* work. No features that make the thing a pain-in-the-butt to deal with. It did 1 thing and did that 1 thing well, simply, and trouble-free. Now it does a couple things well, simply, and trouble-free.
Well, I'd say that's one of the reasons. I think another significant reason was iTunes. That bit of software made it easy to "Rip, Mix, Upload to my damn iPod". Plus you could buy songs online without any hassle. It's a combination of having the player and the software and the content in a neat integrated package. That's something that no other MP3 player manufacturer offers.
This isn't because Apple can't figure out how to do these things-- you just won't see it in a commercially available product until Apple feels it has it all worked out into a simple interface. And when I say simple, I mean like the scroll-wheel design for the interface, or the fact that there's only 1 in/out port (the dock connector). Apple likes their designs to be fool-proof.
Yeah, well, Apple didn't design the iPod. They bought the entire product design and concept from PortalPlayer. Read the history on Wired. The PortalPlayer guy specifically mentions a "Napster like service" as a critical element in the success of the player.
I think the article is absolutely right... but I would put it this way: if 99% of the scientific community accept a theory and 1% does not, then I wouldn't agree that an article that gives both sides equal footing is balanced at all.
You're falling for the same trap that the article talks about. You're using consensus to decide the worthiness of an opinion.
Science is based on facts and theories. The consensus is irrelevant. If the facts disprove the theory then the theory is discarded. It doesn't matter that 99% of scientists believe in the false theory; a single fact has more power.
Journalism needs to learn from science. The current trend in journalism is to give "equal air time" to each opinionated buffoon who wants their 15 minutes of fame. You and I both agree that's a mistake. But apportioning air time based on consensus is not an improvement. Giving air time based on credibility is the answer. The difficult part is figuring out which buffoon is credible; most journalists don't have sufficient time, experience or training to sort through the mountains of data and extract the facts.
The NYT and Washington Post both lean a good bit to the left in thier reporting.
They might lean further left than most of your papers but to the rest of the world they're still very right-wing. I said something similar a few articles ago and got moderated into oblivion as a troll. I honestly wasn't trolling. The yank media has become so right-wing that it's scary. You guys can't even tell anymore because you're only ever exposed to different shades of right-wing agendas.
It's my personal theory that no matter what happens, the "environmentalists" will find something to complain about no matter what source of power we find.
Because like any group, environmentalists have different people with different opinions. Some environmentalists will applaud the wind farms. Some will decry them. But you'll still claim that "the environmentalists" are never happy, as if they're a single-minded collective like the Borg.
I actually get to help RAISE my kids -- not just let my wife or some hired 'day care' raise them. Our children have never seen a 'baby sitter' other than grandma. They've never been picked up from school by anyone other than my wife or myself. You cant pay me enough to give that up.
Smartest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. Other young fathers should heed what this guy is saying. When you're sitting on your deathbed, you won't regret making $50k instead of $100k in 2004, but you will regret it if you didn't spend enough time with your children.
MS had it first, and they probably caught it from Apple -- remember when Apple were threatening to sue people (including MS) they claimed had copied the interface...
Microsoft did copy the interface from Apple. It was a pretty blatant ripoff. Even the internal API was a direct ripoff, even down to the identical function names and the peculiar use of handles.
Go read Folklore.org. In particular, read this story about Microsoft employee Neil Konzen. Basically he was working on Microsoft Office for the Mac and he (ab)used his close relationship with Apple to leak implementation details to the Microsoft Windows team.
I haven't heard any such thing. As a Republican, let me give you a different response:
My guy won.
Wow, so you actually voted for Bush, yet you have sufficient mental capacity to read and write! Well that throws all my theories on how he won the election out the window.
If the movies are so bad why are people stealing them (sorry, infringing on their copywrite)?
People will steal a turd if it's wrapped up in a bow.
But I think there's a real argument hidden in there somewhere. Hollywood produces some real flops. Like that movie Cutthroat Island which cost USD$98million to produce yet only grossed USD$11million at the box office.
Hollywood relies too heavily on "big name" actors and "big budget" special effects. But even though they'll spend $10million+ on actors and $20million+ on special effects, they seem to have a problem spending more than $20 on a script.
All these terrible flops - like Garfield - must eat into their profits far faster than the 14 year olds copying movies with eDonkey. Now that doesn't justify what these 14 year olds are doing, but it does make it difficult to feel sorry for these idiot producers. They complain about their dwindling profits yet their solution is to produce more of the same mediocre crap.
Simple rule of thumb. I go to the cinema once a month. Having more choices won't make me see more movies. Make the movie good and that's what I'll pay $15 to see. My recent choice was Shaun Of The Dead. No well-known actors. No special effects worth mentioning. The budget was nothing to speak of. Yet my circle of friends spent nearly $100 that night to see it. We walked right past the latest excesses from Hollywood like "Resident Evil 2", and we've no intention of seeing that at the cinema. We probably won't even waste our time hiring it from the local DVD store.
I think there's an argument up there somewhere though I haven't done a good job of teasing it out. Good luck finding it!
So explain to me how they are losing money in this transaction.
I don't have to explain that. I was simply answering your question "Don't [the producers] want me to watch the damned show?". They don't want you to watch the show unless they make money in the process. They don't make money when you download the show. Sure, they wouldn't have made money anyway but these people aren't logical. This is the same industry where one CEO (Turner?) said that fast-forwarding the commercials is the same thing as stealing. That's not logical. But that is what they think.
I disagree. I just read your other reply and you spent $400 on video cables and $300 on speaker cables. That's plain nuts. I work with electronics and I can pass a 10GHz signal over a $50 cable with negligible distortion. There is no realistic justification for the prices you're advocating.
Oviously the "real" serious audiophiles with the golden ears, will spend more. Hey everyone has a hobby
Yeah, well I have a very negative opinion of audiophiles. I rate them somewhere between astrologists and TV evangelists.
does the violent movie turn a normal guy into a killer?
Once again you're being black and white. I don't believe a single violent movie will turn any normal guy into a killer, but I do believe that violent movies can be one of many factors that leads to violent actions.
so i take your "media influences" and throw it right back at you: if media does influence, then it takes our violent and antisocial sexual urges and provides a harmless outlet for them
I believe that both are true. Media can provide an outlet for some people. It can also encourage antisocial behaviour in others. I think for most people that both are true at the same time. Cogitate on that one!
got it?
I think I "got it" several decades before you even started thinking about it. This isn't a new argument. It predates my birth by at least a few 1000 years.
if you honestly believe [media] plays ANY hands in making people violent or sexually depraved,
Yes.
then you are trying to tell me that before media: before videogames, movies, records, books... that we were somehow peaceful and loving
That does not follow from what I believe. You are not thinking clearly.
Man these people are just evil. I just want to watch your tv show for god's sake why do you have to make it do difficult for me. Don't you want me to watch the damned show?
I suspect the answer is "no". They don't make any money when you watch a download. If you pay for it on DVD, or watch a sponsored TV station, then they get money and they're happy.
if you believe in the concept of personal accountability, you can not blame the media for anything
Too black and white. I do believe in the concept of personal accountability, but I also believe that the media is partially responsible for shaping our behaviour. They contribute to our personal knowledge (through both information and misinformation) and that affects how we react to events and other people.
Monster cable isn't THAT bad.... the rule of thumb is to spend 10% of your Home Theater / Speaker cost on cables... so MC is'n't that over-inflated. It's not great, but it's better that Rat Shack.
Whose rule of thumb is that? So if my amp costs $2000, the speakers cost $3500, the player costs $500, you're telling me I need $600 worth of cables? What drugs are you smoking?
Heavy gauge shielded copper for the speakers is less than $2/m. Gold plated connectors are $3 each. Decent interconnects (prebuilt, not worth building your own) are $40 each. I'd be struggling to spend even $100 on the cabling for the entire system. That's less than 2% of the entire system.
I believe in the "half on your speakers, half on everything else" rule of thumb but 10% just for cables sounds like a Monster Cable Marketing Myth.
The fact that the next leader of the freaking world
Is this like "World Baseball" and "World Wrestling" where the US is the only participant? Because your damn president isn't my fucking leader you arrogant wanker.
Typically, the range of women presented to your average geek is:
sane, hot, intelligent, available, nice
Pick any four.
"You can marry a beautiful woman or you can marry a woman who can cook. Beauty doesn't last but you will always need to eat." -- not all that famous Russian proverb
There was a recent series on Australia's national television about inventors. If I learnt anything from the series it's that ideas are a dime a dozen but turning ideas into a marketable product is a lot of work.
Put some effort into your idea. Write down a design. Make it work. Build a prototype. Get a patent on the working invention. The point of a patent is to reward the person who turns the idea into reality. If you don't know how to build it then LEARN HOW. If you don't want to put in the effort then you don't deserve to profit from the idea. Simple as that.
In any event, I would bet dollars to donuts that your idea is not unique. If you can think of it somebody else can think of it too, and they probably already have. But you will probably find, like many of the inventors on the afore-mentioned television series, that the original idea would never have worked. Through the process of building the invention they refined the idea until it does work. That's the valuable part of the invention. That's what makes them special people. That's what you should be doing, rather than thinking about royalty payments.
PS: I have no encouragement or sympathy for any person who expects to "hand off" their idea to a company and wait for the royalty cheques. I think it's disgusting that you are madly keen to start receiving royalty cheques yet so disinterested in being involved in the creation of the invention.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, we're not up to a million subscribers yet.
Ook ook.
I don't know if it's fact but I do know an acceptable fix for a broken Xbox DVDROM is to open the case, find the little potentiometer that controls the laser strength, and give it a quarter turn clockwise. Works like a charm after that.
It's still officially named the Hyundai Excel in Australia.
I disagree. I think it's very wrong. It might be legal. It might even be common industry practise. But it's definitely wrong.
This isn't activation for network play, or to access their servers. This is activation for the single-player version. What happens when Vivendi goes bankrupt? And they will go bankrupt because this is the gaming industry! Suddenly all of the games cease to function. That's simply retarded. They're purposefully putting timebombs on their software. You've paid for a license but they can revoke your right to use it at any time. That's WRONG.
Software activation is simply another example of the failure to maintain a balance between owner and user rights. I'm waiting for the backlash but comments like yours indicate that might never happen; even the supposedly educated community is largely complacent!
Well, I'd say that's one of the reasons. I think another significant reason was iTunes. That bit of software made it easy to "Rip, Mix, Upload to my damn iPod". Plus you could buy songs online without any hassle. It's a combination of having the player and the software and the content in a neat integrated package. That's something that no other MP3 player manufacturer offers.
Yeah, well, Apple didn't design the iPod. They bought the entire product design and concept from PortalPlayer. Read the history on Wired. The PortalPlayer guy specifically mentions a "Napster like service" as a critical element in the success of the player.
You're falling for the same trap that the article talks about. You're using consensus to decide the worthiness of an opinion.
Science is based on facts and theories. The consensus is irrelevant. If the facts disprove the theory then the theory is discarded. It doesn't matter that 99% of scientists believe in the false theory; a single fact has more power.
Journalism needs to learn from science. The current trend in journalism is to give "equal air time" to each opinionated buffoon who wants their 15 minutes of fame. You and I both agree that's a mistake. But apportioning air time based on consensus is not an improvement. Giving air time based on credibility is the answer. The difficult part is figuring out which buffoon is credible; most journalists don't have sufficient time, experience or training to sort through the mountains of data and extract the facts.
They might lean further left than most of your papers but to the rest of the world they're still very right-wing. I said something similar a few articles ago and got moderated into oblivion as a troll. I honestly wasn't trolling. The yank media has become so right-wing that it's scary. You guys can't even tell anymore because you're only ever exposed to different shades of right-wing agendas.
Because like any group, environmentalists have different people with different opinions. Some environmentalists will applaud the wind farms. Some will decry them. But you'll still claim that "the environmentalists" are never happy, as if they're a single-minded collective like the Borg.
Well gee, if only they'd listened to you earlier. /rollseyes
Smartest thing I have ever read on Slashdot. Other young fathers should heed what this guy is saying. When you're sitting on your deathbed, you won't regret making $50k instead of $100k in 2004, but you will regret it if you didn't spend enough time with your children.
Microsoft did copy the interface from Apple. It was a pretty blatant ripoff. Even the internal API was a direct ripoff, even down to the identical function names and the peculiar use of handles.
Go read Folklore.org. In particular, read this story about Microsoft employee Neil Konzen. Basically he was working on Microsoft Office for the Mac and he (ab)used his close relationship with Apple to leak implementation details to the Microsoft Windows team.
... Apple licensed from Xerox.
I'm not a Democrat, nor a Liberal, nor even an American. I just think it's amusing that people will cast their vote for a retarded chimp.
I really couldn't care less about your Democrat party either. As far as I'm concerned, you're just as right wing as your Republican pals.
Well colour me surprised. I felt sure, given the terrible reviews it has received, that it would have flopped. I guess I should have checked.
Wow, so you actually voted for Bush, yet you have sufficient mental capacity to read and write! Well that throws all my theories on how he won the election out the window.
People will steal a turd if it's wrapped up in a bow.
But I think there's a real argument hidden in there somewhere. Hollywood produces some real flops. Like that movie Cutthroat Island which cost USD$98million to produce yet only grossed USD$11million at the box office.
Hollywood relies too heavily on "big name" actors and "big budget" special effects. But even though they'll spend $10million+ on actors and $20million+ on special effects, they seem to have a problem spending more than $20 on a script.
All these terrible flops - like Garfield - must eat into their profits far faster than the 14 year olds copying movies with eDonkey. Now that doesn't justify what these 14 year olds are doing, but it does make it difficult to feel sorry for these idiot producers. They complain about their dwindling profits yet their solution is to produce more of the same mediocre crap.
Simple rule of thumb. I go to the cinema once a month. Having more choices won't make me see more movies. Make the movie good and that's what I'll pay $15 to see. My recent choice was Shaun Of The Dead. No well-known actors. No special effects worth mentioning. The budget was nothing to speak of. Yet my circle of friends spent nearly $100 that night to see it. We walked right past the latest excesses from Hollywood like "Resident Evil 2", and we've no intention of seeing that at the cinema. We probably won't even waste our time hiring it from the local DVD store.
I think there's an argument up there somewhere though I haven't done a good job of teasing it out. Good luck finding it!
I don't have to explain that. I was simply answering your question "Don't [the producers] want me to watch the damned show?". They don't want you to watch the show unless they make money in the process. They don't make money when you download the show. Sure, they wouldn't have made money anyway but these people aren't logical. This is the same industry where one CEO (Turner?) said that fast-forwarding the commercials is the same thing as stealing. That's not logical. But that is what they think.
I disagree. I just read your other reply and you spent $400 on video cables and $300 on speaker cables. That's plain nuts. I work with electronics and I can pass a 10GHz signal over a $50 cable with negligible distortion. There is no realistic justification for the prices you're advocating.
Yeah, well I have a very negative opinion of audiophiles. I rate them somewhere between astrologists and TV evangelists.
Once again you're being black and white. I don't believe a single violent movie will turn any normal guy into a killer, but I do believe that violent movies can be one of many factors that leads to violent actions.
I believe that both are true. Media can provide an outlet for some people. It can also encourage antisocial behaviour in others. I think for most people that both are true at the same time. Cogitate on that one!
I think I "got it" several decades before you even started thinking about it. This isn't a new argument. It predates my birth by at least a few 1000 years.
Yes.
That does not follow from what I believe. You are not thinking clearly.
I suspect the answer is "no". They don't make any money when you watch a download. If you pay for it on DVD, or watch a sponsored TV station, then they get money and they're happy.
Too black and white. I do believe in the concept of personal accountability, but I also believe that the media is partially responsible for shaping our behaviour. They contribute to our personal knowledge (through both information and misinformation) and that affects how we react to events and other people.
Whose rule of thumb is that? So if my amp costs $2000, the speakers cost $3500, the player costs $500, you're telling me I need $600 worth of cables? What drugs are you smoking?
Heavy gauge shielded copper for the speakers is less than $2/m. Gold plated connectors are $3 each. Decent interconnects (prebuilt, not worth building your own) are $40 each. I'd be struggling to spend even $100 on the cabling for the entire system. That's less than 2% of the entire system.
I believe in the "half on your speakers, half on everything else" rule of thumb but 10% just for cables sounds like a Monster Cable Marketing Myth.
Probably meant pixel-shading.
Is this like "World Baseball" and "World Wrestling" where the US is the only participant? Because your damn president isn't my fucking leader you arrogant wanker.
"You can marry a beautiful woman or you can marry a woman who can cook. Beauty doesn't last but you will always need to eat." -- not all that famous Russian proverb
... if all you've got is an idea.
There was a recent series on Australia's national television about inventors. If I learnt anything from the series it's that ideas are a dime a dozen but turning ideas into a marketable product is a lot of work.
Put some effort into your idea. Write down a design. Make it work. Build a prototype. Get a patent on the working invention. The point of a patent is to reward the person who turns the idea into reality. If you don't know how to build it then LEARN HOW. If you don't want to put in the effort then you don't deserve to profit from the idea. Simple as that.
In any event, I would bet dollars to donuts that your idea is not unique. If you can think of it somebody else can think of it too, and they probably already have. But you will probably find, like many of the inventors on the afore-mentioned television series, that the original idea would never have worked. Through the process of building the invention they refined the idea until it does work. That's the valuable part of the invention. That's what makes them special people. That's what you should be doing, rather than thinking about royalty payments.
PS: I have no encouragement or sympathy for any person who expects to "hand off" their idea to a company and wait for the royalty cheques. I think it's disgusting that you are madly keen to start receiving royalty cheques yet so disinterested in being involved in the creation of the invention.