I never, ever have that problem. I fill up when it makes sense, and I'm not under any pressure.
Deffo not a waste of time or money. The business just marks it all up, making the money they would always make. Then again, who gives a shit about the business?
Mine is staffed with nice people. I know them well, and I get good service consistently. Happy to pay for that, as I'm sure the business owner is happy to have my patronage, appreciating the quality service they do.
Business owners make money on people too, or did you miss that day in school somewhere?
There are some stations like you describe. Understaffed, kind of shitty really. I don't buy gas there. Why bother, when I can get it somewhere that wants to run it proper?
Seems to me, you are fixated on your own self, not really thinking the whole matter through, but that could just be me...
Cheers, and I sure hope you find a better gas station, and reconsider your fill up strategy, LOL!!
Totally. It does apply in the north west far more than it does your area. I have family there, and must say the very cold winter isn't a bad time to just stay in the car...
As for no value added, do you live in Oregon? It rains A LOT. And when it's like 45 and soupy rain, getting colder, it's absolutely great to pull up, stuff a 20 out the window, and get your gas pumped, easy cheezy.
I know my regular gas guy. We have a running conversation over the years, kids, family, politics, you name it. There is a lot of value there too.
As for prices? It's a few pennies most of the time, and sometimes it's less here than it is in Washington.
There, it's all pre-pay, barren stations, often dirty, crime laden, with some dude in what I can only characterize as the smallest possible workspace, barking at you through some shitty PA.
Of course, one can go to the nicer stations, where they figure out new and interesting ways to get you inside to buy stuff...
So the value is debatable, clearly. No question. But, let's be clear. It's not a significant price difference. I've lived here a long time, and the cost of gas relative to the "do it yourself" states has never been significant enough to warrant giving up the option of just staying in the car on a shitty day.
Been doing it for years. And have been doing it for something along those lines for a reason.
1. The norm that we all need to lock the things down out of fear has got to be checked. There is no need for that.
2. I like the EFF reasoning.
3. The security stuff is a PITA. I've got some stuff that I would rather not share, and it's not on the open wi-fi. Easily done.
Drives my neighbor nuts. They say, "but I want to use MY INTERNET". And I say, "ok" and "why don't you just do that?". "But yours is just there", "Isn't it the SAME Internet", "well, yes but", "so then no worries right"....
I think the idea that there are good people in the world, who care, who would risk their lives, and have fun is a great idea to muse upon. Lots of things are not fun right now, and there are a lot of not so good people, who don't care, risking our lives instead of theirs, and that sucks.
On some low fantasy level, I think it would be just fine to have a Kirk and crew, or even SG-1 and crew, swoop in and solve some problems.
Other things were the characters in that movie. They lit up. I enjoyed that, because I think they enjoyed doing it. That does not always come through on film, and on that movie, it did.
Well, I guess we are not yet done, because I really like the point you raised.
I think a lot of this has to do with the economies. In Russia and Asia, people don't make enough to even buy in at the level we do, and if we sell at their rates, it's brutal because it sets lower prices here.
The major software vendor I work with manages their price structure across the different regions. That's not as possible with games and common media because ordinary people don't see that dynamic, and or the complexity of the deal makes mass sales difficult.
Your characterization of the crowd here may be accurate, however I've been around a long while --before the site was filled with clowns like it is now. I'm not here advocating that piracy is good. It's not. But open is. The PC gaming scene is difficult because it's just a mess, but I don't think that's all piracy related. Sure, there is a big impact there, because it's just not hard on a PC. Never has been, never will be.
Honestly, gaming on PCs just isn't anywhere near on par with consoles. That's where the core driver behind the poor sales is. Hell, most people are moving to laptops and what I would characterize as poor gaming rigs, with the real PCs being used for higher end applications, CAD, VIDEO, etc...
The other impact is casual gaming on little devices.
I seriously question the broad applicability of big scale game productions. A good friend of mine just published for iPhone, and it's in the top 80 or so UK charts, and it's going to make a serious amount of money for the fraction of the dev done on a larger console project. Small team, low investment, mostly sweat equity and paying for some art and promotion, and it's looking good.
Nobody is "paying" for the piracy paradise in Asia. We are paying for the developments, which are profitable, and selling in the markets where they sell. Dealing with the markets where it's not sold is a separate problem. Sure, they are leveraging what is done, but then again, if they couldn't, the numbers wouldn't change, so the demand there is a opportunity that's not yet been cracked, not some justification to lock things down to the point where people can't own their stuff.
We've got politics as the problem there more than anything else.
One more thing on reverse engineering. I personally oppose software and business process patents, and restrictions on reverse engineering. Licensing content is fair game, and that's where the value is. Hobbling software development as a way to deal with that issue hurts a lot of people. The important dynamic of software is one can build on the efforts done before. The patents do more harm than good, creating artificial value and scarcity where there really is none. Real money is made actually producing things that solve problems, and continuing down that road, not doing it once, then locking it up for so many years.
We wouldn't have the level of computing we do today had we the law we do today back then, and that's what your real Slashdotter thinks about. At least that's what we thought about so long ago when this all started.
Finally, the piracy in the US is paid for. Money is being made, and a lot of it is being made. Don't forget that. So the question is how to leverage those opportunities, because that's exactly what they are.
We can continue the discussion, if you like. It's a good conversation here, and one I've not had for a while.
How much money is made on 360 vs PS3, with the variations in piracy?
Another rub on this thing: If we actually do bring enforcement to the level desired, how is it that copying a game or movie carries a penalty worse than say rape?
Is there any wonder people don't respect the laws we have?
I do like what you wrote here: Show how to make money embracing it. I don't believe the majors right now are capable of that, but others are. The movie and music industries are slowly coming around, figuring out that when people are exposed to stuff, more of them buy stuff. Some book authors have done very well with creative commons too.
My only point in this is we need to have it open, so we get the geohots and advance our future. All this stuff was built by people who simply could. Take that away, and they can't and we don't get the new buildings. (metaphor)
You are honest for towing the industry line. I respect that. I aim in the software business too, and have to tow it where I'm involved. But that doesn't mean I don't give the macro view of things serious consideration, and remember my own roots, which did involve copies, and they paid off way more than they were a loss.
The industry is a notch better for somebody like me, and probably you too, because we did see the toys, and they were accessible. When I compare the PC to say cell phones, closed computing runs rampant with abuse that costs people a lot of money. It doesn't have to be that way. I would prefer that it didn't.
Good conversation, and you have the last word on it, if you are so inclined.
Well, let's say we disagree, and jesus. You could try some formatting.
The moral argument here is that without some checks on what SONY does with their OS, they can over exploit those using it. How do we know SONY is playing fair, for example?
When I said "access" you clearly have hardware that is developer hardware, and the documentation and the licenses that are needed to write programs.
What happens when the hardware gets old, or somebody wants to archive a game for later on?
Here's the reality on it. The current state of copyright and IP in general is too draconian. People are pushing back because of that. It's not all fair, and it's not all right, but it's being magnified into a bigger deal than it really is.
For what it's worth, I build my own game systems on smaller scale hardware and have a lot of fun with some friends who do the same. But, I also know how I got into this stuff, and it wasn't by just doing what I was told. Geohot is the future here, not the enemy. Either we will come to realize that, or pay very dearly as a society for that general failure.
The "want to play free" issue will always be there. Each instance of that is NOT A LOSS, as many of them simply would not have paid anyway, and the body of available entertainment dollars doesn't actually fund all those instances of free anyway. So, it's not about that. It's about structuring things so that more of the people make more of the right choices more of the time, not locking them out, untrusted, assumed criminals.
So we differ. I don't think gaming is at a scale that warrants this level of draconian IP law. Never have. Was there before it was that way, and I'm right now where it still isn't that way. Don't need the games.
Like I wrote above. There is a very simple solution. Don't sell people things. Rent them, and most all of the issue goes away. That can be done now, it would work, and it would be expensive, but secure, and effective against piracy. Don't tell me it's not a solvable problem. SONY and others just want their cake and to eat it too, and the world just does not work that way. Never has, never will.
Here's the deal. You really are not in a position to be harassed. Developing means adding value to SONY, and a level of access sufficient to be meaningful to you. No worries.
Now, say one isn't at that level of access. Maybe wants to learn. Perhaps wants to author something they believe might be of value. Re-purpose the console? Lots of things possible here.
Of course one can run Linux on a PC. That's not the point. The point is what ownership means, and whether or not there are checks on SONY and it's security system. When I buy something as a user, that does not trust me, I really don't own it. This is offensive to me, not because I would pirate, or hack online to grief people. Those things are not valuable to me. But, understanding what my hardware is doing, or being able to repurpose it is! How long have you been developing?
Were you there in the 80's, like I was? I have a solid career today, involving high end software, really ugly licenses (hate that), and complex systems engineering that goes right back to those days in the 80's where one could just open it up and learn stuff. That's true today with Linux and the PC, and it's a damn good thing.
But it really isn't true with the PS3, and it should be, because the PC and Linux isn't really going to continue to be relevant. There is a big push to do more closed, trusted computing, and that threatens people like me, and maybe you, depending on how you cut your chops.
Casual gamer maybe? Somebody clueless, who buys the line SONY writes on this stuff? Hard to believe a real slashdotter would even bother going down the road you are right now.
When we mix hardware together, and the company blatently abuses their position, harming a lot of people, fair is fair. Perhaps SONY should seriously consider not fucking people over, and there would be less of a reason to modify their OS.
One of the DMCA exceptions is for interoperability, and the recent jailbreak exception demonstrates the validity of this. You are quite right in that it's not explicitly allowed.
But, there are moral issues here, and decisions that will last a long time. The idea that we can't deal with our hardware isn't a good one longer term, and when hardware and software are mixed together, something has to give.
I understand they want to have it all their way, but doing business costs money. A rental program is expensive, and more expensive than dealing with the things that people do when they own stuff.
They need to deal just like everybody else does, and realize that selling things isn't just a free ride.
Buy a license to use some SONY gear, and during the term of your license, if you have trouble with it, drop it off or ship it to a depot, and get a new one, no worries.
When you are done, return the device and carry on.
That's really what they are trying to do, only they are trying to leverage the benefits of ownership, without also dealing with the realities of what people do with their stuff.
If it's really that big of a deal to open the PS3, don't sell them to people. Simple as that.
I personally don't use Facebook because it's unknown where the direction of the company is going to go, and they seem to be very aggressive about their use of the data. Don't trust them. It's that simple.
I know many people that do. Of those people, I know plenty that had bad experiences, and plenty that had good ones too. I personally wouldn't judge somebody on a Facebook account, because the use cases are all over the map.
That's what good interview skills are all about. Christ, if they can't do a good read on the person they have DIRECT and IMMEDIATE access to, perhaps it's time to get some education, instead of falling back on shitty things like asking for the keys to people's personal lives.
To me, this shit is all self-correcting. Anybody that makes a mess of their lives on Facebook will probably only get to work in the fucked up places where that shit doesn't matter. Fine by me. Employers who turn to the Internet in abusive ways to get advantage over their employees are not worth working for either.
People tend to sort themselves out over time. No worries here.
The best thing is to just manage your life, and your employment opportunities and think things over before you do them. Shutting some doors that you never, ever plan to walk through isn't too big of a deal. Not sure? Then be conservative about it, until you are. Most of it is all that simple.
Would you care to restate your question?...or, perhaps we can argue about the big companies, who stood to profit BIG from that war, putting money into politics, side-stepping common sense regulations?
Maybe you are just a bit pissed, because governments do actually make the rules, and business isn't always to be trusted?...or, failure to find a operating free market is frustrating?
Longing for the wild west again, where the rich got really rich, and a lot of other people just died, or maybe the roaring 20's filled with robber barons, crashing the economy, in a fashion not unlike what we saw recently?
Or does the idea of corporate welfare more or less disturb the free market idea entirely? Seems to me, hard core free market ideology applied to those huge financial corporations would have brought us all ruin, because they pushed all their cost and risk onto us?
You know, privatize the profits, socialize the losses kind of thing?
So we bailed them out, government working for the people right there, got paid back, and that just goes to show how risky truly free enterprise really is?
Heh...
Big business used a light regulation environment to gamble the nations wealth away, while outsourcing it's jobs, leaving the people poor, unable to meet their own needs.
They hatched the plan, they paid to get people elected, and they did the work to break the middle class. That's your free markets right there. Freedom to persue unlimited and socially unjust exploitation for private gain.
No thanks.
It's a damn good thing no such market exists. It would be very dangerous.
Me? Since I am part of the government, and in the US, it's supposed to be about WE THE PEOPLE, I think I'll take the side where Government watches over my ass, keeping me healthy, free of toxins, living in a place that I can appreciate, and working for wages that makes sense, over big trans-national corporations doing everything they can to push their costs and risks onto ordinary people.
When government is doing it's proper role, representing the people, business is checked, so that the product of all of it is good for everybody, not just the owners of the businesses. That's the key distinction worth noting.
Without that check, it's every person for themselves, fuck the future, fuck the other guy, because it's all about the money, and nothing else.
You don't matter, I don't matter, nobody or no thing matters, but the money.
That's what you want to believe, but the truth is, Government sets the rules for the market to operate in.
The problems we have today, largely center around the idea that business somehow operates outside the law and government.
What you write of is corruption, money in politics, and I would agree, and would also point out that demonstrates my point nicely enough; namely, there are no free markets anywhere in the world. They do not exist.
What does exist is corrupt, and needs some attention so that we the people are served by our society. Arguably, "good business" is simply that business who has manipulated the rules to favor them at the expense of others in their niche, and us.
You go ahead though, and keep thinking government is the enemy. It's not.
We may have to experience some seriously bad times in the US, above and beyond what we are seeing right now, before the majority of free market types begin to understand just how badly they've been duped for the last 30 years.
You do realize, of all the modern nations in the world, we here in the US are the only ones foolish enough to actually entertain the idea of free markets, leaving our people and resources ripe for over-exploitation right?
Other nations insure that their people are gainfully employed, and that business profits, but not at the expense of the standard of living of the nation it serves.
Go take a hard look at Germany, for a stellar example of protectionism and globalism working hand in hand to both insure the German quality of life, endurance and competitive nature of it's industry, and the stability of the nation overall.
Here, lack of regulation has brought us a condition where the US imports far more than it produces, causing us to grow more poor every year, as big business pulls wealth from the nation, using overseas labor, to increase it's profit above and beyond what is otherwise healthy for all involved.
When we had common sense regulations, that insured that business operated in ways that did not do harm to the society, we did very well in the US, not having the kinds of problems we do today.
The GOP set the expectation that government is the problem, and did so 30 years ago, leaving us today with very low national production, high demand and high consumption, and very little means of wealth production, compared to our basic needs.
That's toxic, and completely undesirable, and a direct consequense of deregulation, which permitted the companies to put our people in competition with those of much lesser means.
Good citizens, of modern nations, need to not take that kind of shit, having the self-respect to understand what needs to be checked and what does not, and the outsourcing of jobs needs to be checked, yesterday.
Free markets are the great equalizer. Instead of having our future under our control, everybody involved in a deregulated market will end up doing equally shitty.
Go ahead. Ask around. The truth is out there, if you leave our borders for a few polite conversations.
Governments set market rules and are responsible for deciding what is GOOD business and what isn't. The "free market" idea simply says that all business is good business, which it isn't.
Well, you live in a place where that trust is denied to you. That's not a technical problem. It is a social / civics problem you've got there.
Where I live, we value voting, and we've taken steps to insure that all the core attributes of a trustworthy election are in place and operating, and that the public can be secure in how it all works.
Lots of people share your concern, and on the current electronics, that's a very healthy concern. Same for States that have very aggressive caging operations going on, challenges, etc...
Selling / building technology to address social and legal problems is a double edge sword. Where I live, we dealt with the civics, and have few to no issues, and can fully recount visually, with peer review, if necessary.
I like that solution, because it keeps the people in control of things, and it doesn't advance the "code as law" idea in a material way.
Doing things like this electronically does. What happens when the law varies, and the machines do not, or more importantly, the machines being pervasive challenges the law, or simply ignore it, doing their own thing?
Can happen with things other than votes you know. Do we really want that?
Doesn't all that checking significantly reduce the value proposition?
Seems to me, we are much better off using our people and simple tech to do our civics.
I don't see where this actually solves a problem.
Will people actually check?
Actually, with the paper system, we do know the votes are counted. We use simple audits to know the counting is correct, and if we do need to actually recount, or put those votes in a court of law, the actual action of the voter, and thus their intent is there, human readable, without the need for expensive enabling technology.
I do think it's a interesting solution, I just don't see where we've got a problem with the civics that requires it, or where it's value exceeds that of simple, common sense methods.
One thing about using paper to record the vote intent is civics scale. For any population, we've got enough elderly and unemployed people to perform that duty, and why not have them do it? It is, after all, their election, where everything should be transparent.
In fact, a trustworthy election needs to embody all four of these to the maximum extent possible:
Transparent -- The record of the vote can be seen and followed from record made by voter through to the tally. Where we have enabling technology, we have a loss of transparency. A lot of this solution is selling the position of forced trust we place on the voter, due to the record of the vote not being a enduring thing.
Oversight -- It must be possible for ordinary people to understand the entire process from vote cast to tally, and this depends on transparency. VBM is really easy. Computer assisted printed votes, can roll this way too.
Freedom -- One must be free to vote, or not, as we feel fit.
Anonymity -- The record of the vote must not be identified or linked to the voter. Good, robust paper systems, like VBM, allow authentication via signature, or something, then seperate that from the ballots so cast.
Interesting solution though. I think it's a comp-sci type challenge that's worth the effort, but I don't see the core value proposition of it being a net savings that is compelling enough to bother otherwise.
At some point, doing our civics requires a bit of time and effort, and that actually raises the value of the civics in a healthy way.
Much better, IMHO, to do that using people, and a simple, clear, enduring record of the voter intent, not requiring expensive enabling technology to vet, tally, and be present in a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it that hard to plan your fill ups?
I never, ever have that problem. I fill up when it makes sense, and I'm not under any pressure.
Deffo not a waste of time or money. The business just marks it all up, making the money they would always make. Then again, who gives a shit about the business?
Mine is staffed with nice people. I know them well, and I get good service consistently. Happy to pay for that, as I'm sure the business owner is happy to have my patronage, appreciating the quality service they do.
Business owners make money on people too, or did you miss that day in school somewhere?
There are some stations like you describe. Understaffed, kind of shitty really. I don't buy gas there. Why bother, when I can get it somewhere that wants to run it proper?
Seems to me, you are fixated on your own self, not really thinking the whole matter through, but that could just be me...
Cheers, and I sure hope you find a better gas station, and reconsider your fill up strategy, LOL!!
Totally. It does apply in the north west far more than it does your area. I have family there, and must say the very cold winter isn't a bad time to just stay in the car...
Nope! Just a old 89 corolla that gets about 40 MPG. Won't ever get rid of the thing. It's too cheap, and too easy to repair.
Yes, it is a job making law. No question.
As for no value added, do you live in Oregon? It rains A LOT. And when it's like 45 and soupy rain, getting colder, it's absolutely great to pull up, stuff a 20 out the window, and get your gas pumped, easy cheezy.
I know my regular gas guy. We have a running conversation over the years, kids, family, politics, you name it. There is a lot of value there too.
As for prices? It's a few pennies most of the time, and sometimes it's less here than it is in Washington.
There, it's all pre-pay, barren stations, often dirty, crime laden, with some dude in what I can only characterize as the smallest possible workspace, barking at you through some shitty PA.
Of course, one can go to the nicer stations, where they figure out new and interesting ways to get you inside to buy stuff...
So the value is debatable, clearly. No question. But, let's be clear. It's not a significant price difference. I've lived here a long time, and the cost of gas relative to the "do it yourself" states has never been significant enough to warrant giving up the option of just staying in the car on a shitty day.
Been doing it for years. And have been doing it for something along those lines for a reason.
1. The norm that we all need to lock the things down out of fear has got to be checked. There is no need for that.
2. I like the EFF reasoning.
3. The security stuff is a PITA. I've got some stuff that I would rather not share, and it's not on the open wi-fi. Easily done.
Drives my neighbor nuts. They say, "but I want to use MY INTERNET". And I say, "ok" and "why don't you just do that?". "But yours is just there", "Isn't it the SAME Internet", "well, yes but", "so then no worries right"....
It was just fun.
I think the idea that there are good people in the world, who care, who would risk their lives, and have fun is a great idea to muse upon. Lots of things are not fun right now, and there are a lot of not so good people, who don't care, risking our lives instead of theirs, and that sucks.
On some low fantasy level, I think it would be just fine to have a Kirk and crew, or even SG-1 and crew, swoop in and solve some problems.
Other things were the characters in that movie. They lit up. I enjoyed that, because I think they enjoyed doing it. That does not always come through on film, and on that movie, it did.
Well, I guess we are not yet done, because I really like the point you raised.
I think a lot of this has to do with the economies. In Russia and Asia, people don't make enough to even buy in at the level we do, and if we sell at their rates, it's brutal because it sets lower prices here.
The major software vendor I work with manages their price structure across the different regions. That's not as possible with games and common media because ordinary people don't see that dynamic, and or the complexity of the deal makes mass sales difficult.
Your characterization of the crowd here may be accurate, however I've been around a long while --before the site was filled with clowns like it is now. I'm not here advocating that piracy is good. It's not. But open is. The PC gaming scene is difficult because it's just a mess, but I don't think that's all piracy related. Sure, there is a big impact there, because it's just not hard on a PC. Never has been, never will be.
Honestly, gaming on PCs just isn't anywhere near on par with consoles. That's where the core driver behind the poor sales is. Hell, most people are moving to laptops and what I would characterize as poor gaming rigs, with the real PCs being used for higher end applications, CAD, VIDEO, etc...
The other impact is casual gaming on little devices.
I seriously question the broad applicability of big scale game productions. A good friend of mine just published for iPhone, and it's in the top 80 or so UK charts, and it's going to make a serious amount of money for the fraction of the dev done on a larger console project. Small team, low investment, mostly sweat equity and paying for some art and promotion, and it's looking good.
Nobody is "paying" for the piracy paradise in Asia. We are paying for the developments, which are profitable, and selling in the markets where they sell. Dealing with the markets where it's not sold is a separate problem. Sure, they are leveraging what is done, but then again, if they couldn't, the numbers wouldn't change, so the demand there is a opportunity that's not yet been cracked, not some justification to lock things down to the point where people can't own their stuff.
We've got politics as the problem there more than anything else.
One more thing on reverse engineering. I personally oppose software and business process patents, and restrictions on reverse engineering. Licensing content is fair game, and that's where the value is. Hobbling software development as a way to deal with that issue hurts a lot of people. The important dynamic of software is one can build on the efforts done before. The patents do more harm than good, creating artificial value and scarcity where there really is none. Real money is made actually producing things that solve problems, and continuing down that road, not doing it once, then locking it up for so many years.
We wouldn't have the level of computing we do today had we the law we do today back then, and that's what your real Slashdotter thinks about. At least that's what we thought about so long ago when this all started.
Finally, the piracy in the US is paid for. Money is being made, and a lot of it is being made. Don't forget that. So the question is how to leverage those opportunities, because that's exactly what they are.
We can continue the discussion, if you like. It's a good conversation here, and one I've not had for a while.
It's not the absolute evil, and neither is SONY.
How much money is made on 360 vs PS3, with the variations in piracy?
Another rub on this thing: If we actually do bring enforcement to the level desired, how is it that copying a game or movie carries a penalty worse than say rape?
Is there any wonder people don't respect the laws we have?
I do like what you wrote here: Show how to make money embracing it. I don't believe the majors right now are capable of that, but others are. The movie and music industries are slowly coming around, figuring out that when people are exposed to stuff, more of them buy stuff. Some book authors have done very well with creative commons too.
My only point in this is we need to have it open, so we get the geohots and advance our future. All this stuff was built by people who simply could. Take that away, and they can't and we don't get the new buildings. (metaphor)
You are honest for towing the industry line. I respect that. I aim in the software business too, and have to tow it where I'm involved. But that doesn't mean I don't give the macro view of things serious consideration, and remember my own roots, which did involve copies, and they paid off way more than they were a loss.
The industry is a notch better for somebody like me, and probably you too, because we did see the toys, and they were accessible. When I compare the PC to say cell phones, closed computing runs rampant with abuse that costs people a lot of money. It doesn't have to be that way. I would prefer that it didn't.
Good conversation, and you have the last word on it, if you are so inclined.
Well, let's say we disagree, and jesus. You could try some formatting.
The moral argument here is that without some checks on what SONY does with their OS, they can over exploit those using it. How do we know SONY is playing fair, for example?
When I said "access" you clearly have hardware that is developer hardware, and the documentation and the licenses that are needed to write programs.
What happens when the hardware gets old, or somebody wants to archive a game for later on?
Here's the reality on it. The current state of copyright and IP in general is too draconian. People are pushing back because of that. It's not all fair, and it's not all right, but it's being magnified into a bigger deal than it really is.
For what it's worth, I build my own game systems on smaller scale hardware and have a lot of fun with some friends who do the same. But, I also know how I got into this stuff, and it wasn't by just doing what I was told. Geohot is the future here, not the enemy. Either we will come to realize that, or pay very dearly as a society for that general failure.
The "want to play free" issue will always be there. Each instance of that is NOT A LOSS, as many of them simply would not have paid anyway, and the body of available entertainment dollars doesn't actually fund all those instances of free anyway. So, it's not about that. It's about structuring things so that more of the people make more of the right choices more of the time, not locking them out, untrusted, assumed criminals.
So we differ. I don't think gaming is at a scale that warrants this level of draconian IP law. Never have. Was there before it was that way, and I'm right now where it still isn't that way. Don't need the games.
Like I wrote above. There is a very simple solution. Don't sell people things. Rent them, and most all of the issue goes away. That can be done now, it would work, and it would be expensive, but secure, and effective against piracy. Don't tell me it's not a solvable problem. SONY and others just want their cake and to eat it too, and the world just does not work that way. Never has, never will.
Ok then, that explains your comment more fully.
Here's the deal. You really are not in a position to be harassed. Developing means adding value to SONY, and a level of access sufficient to be meaningful to you. No worries.
Now, say one isn't at that level of access. Maybe wants to learn. Perhaps wants to author something they believe might be of value. Re-purpose the console? Lots of things possible here.
Of course one can run Linux on a PC. That's not the point. The point is what ownership means, and whether or not there are checks on SONY and it's security system. When I buy something as a user, that does not trust me, I really don't own it. This is offensive to me, not because I would pirate, or hack online to grief people. Those things are not valuable to me. But, understanding what my hardware is doing, or being able to repurpose it is! How long have you been developing?
Were you there in the 80's, like I was? I have a solid career today, involving high end software, really ugly licenses (hate that), and complex systems engineering that goes right back to those days in the 80's where one could just open it up and learn stuff. That's true today with Linux and the PC, and it's a damn good thing.
But it really isn't true with the PS3, and it should be, because the PC and Linux isn't really going to continue to be relevant. There is a big push to do more closed, trusted computing, and that threatens people like me, and maybe you, depending on how you cut your chops.
Well, that's not the response I expected.
Casual gamer maybe? Somebody clueless, who buys the line SONY writes on this stuff? Hard to believe a real slashdotter would even bother going down the road you are right now.
Well, tough.
When we mix hardware together, and the company blatently abuses their position, harming a lot of people, fair is fair. Perhaps SONY should seriously consider not fucking people over, and there would be less of a reason to modify their OS.
One of the DMCA exceptions is for interoperability, and the recent jailbreak exception demonstrates the validity of this. You are quite right in that it's not explicitly allowed.
But, there are moral issues here, and decisions that will last a long time. The idea that we can't deal with our hardware isn't a good one longer term, and when hardware and software are mixed together, something has to give.
What? You a SONY fanboi or something?
Yeah? Why fuck with geohot then?
Exactly!!
I understand they want to have it all their way, but doing business costs money. A rental program is expensive, and more expensive than dealing with the things that people do when they own stuff.
They need to deal just like everybody else does, and realize that selling things isn't just a free ride.
I haven't did the coke out nose thing on /. for a while. Thanks!
so that people don't own it. Problem solved.
Buy a license to use some SONY gear, and during the term of your license, if you have trouble with it, drop it off or ship it to a depot, and get a new one, no worries.
When you are done, return the device and carry on.
That's really what they are trying to do, only they are trying to leverage the benefits of ownership, without also dealing with the realities of what people do with their stuff.
If it's really that big of a deal to open the PS3, don't sell them to people. Simple as that.
I personally don't use Facebook because it's unknown where the direction of the company is going to go, and they seem to be very aggressive about their use of the data. Don't trust them. It's that simple.
I know many people that do. Of those people, I know plenty that had bad experiences, and plenty that had good ones too. I personally wouldn't judge somebody on a Facebook account, because the use cases are all over the map.
That's what good interview skills are all about. Christ, if they can't do a good read on the person they have DIRECT and IMMEDIATE access to, perhaps it's time to get some education, instead of falling back on shitty things like asking for the keys to people's personal lives.
To me, this shit is all self-correcting. Anybody that makes a mess of their lives on Facebook will probably only get to work in the fucked up places where that shit doesn't matter. Fine by me. Employers who turn to the Internet in abusive ways to get advantage over their employees are not worth working for either.
People tend to sort themselves out over time. No worries here.
The best thing is to just manage your life, and your employment opportunities and think things over before you do them. Shutting some doors that you never, ever plan to walk through isn't too big of a deal. Not sure? Then be conservative about it, until you are. Most of it is all that simple.
It's not a flaw at all.
Truth is, we've got all sorts of laws for journalists gone bad, so let's just use them!
If one is engaging in the act, the protections are there. Without that, we don't have free speech. Think about it some.
Where can we get the data?
Guardian links down...
Would you care to restate your question? ...or, perhaps we can argue about the big companies, who stood to profit BIG from that war, putting money into politics, side-stepping common sense regulations?
Maybe you are just a bit pissed, because governments do actually make the rules, and business isn't always to be trusted? ...or, failure to find a operating free market is frustrating?
Longing for the wild west again, where the rich got really rich, and a lot of other people just died, or maybe the roaring 20's filled with robber barons, crashing the economy, in a fashion not unlike what we saw recently?
Or does the idea of corporate welfare more or less disturb the free market idea entirely? Seems to me, hard core free market ideology applied to those huge financial corporations would have brought us all ruin, because they pushed all their cost and risk onto us?
You know, privatize the profits, socialize the losses kind of thing?
So we bailed them out, government working for the people right there, got paid back, and that just goes to show how risky truly free enterprise really is?
Heh...
Big business used a light regulation environment to gamble the nations wealth away, while outsourcing it's jobs, leaving the people poor, unable to meet their own needs.
They hatched the plan, they paid to get people elected, and they did the work to break the middle class. That's your free markets right there. Freedom to persue unlimited and socially unjust exploitation for private gain.
No thanks.
It's a damn good thing no such market exists. It would be very dangerous.
Me? Since I am part of the government, and in the US, it's supposed to be about WE THE PEOPLE, I think I'll take the side where Government watches over my ass, keeping me healthy, free of toxins, living in a place that I can appreciate, and working for wages that makes sense, over big trans-national corporations doing everything they can to push their costs and risks onto ordinary people.
When government is doing it's proper role, representing the people, business is checked, so that the product of all of it is good for everybody, not just the owners of the businesses. That's the key distinction worth noting.
Without that check, it's every person for themselves, fuck the future, fuck the other guy, because it's all about the money, and nothing else.
You don't matter, I don't matter, nobody or no thing matters, but the money.
Believe it. It's the total, naked truth.
That's what you want to believe, but the truth is, Government sets the rules for the market to operate in.
The problems we have today, largely center around the idea that business somehow operates outside the law and government.
What you write of is corruption, money in politics, and I would agree, and would also point out that demonstrates my point nicely enough; namely, there are no free markets anywhere in the world. They do not exist.
What does exist is corrupt, and needs some attention so that we the people are served by our society. Arguably, "good business" is simply that business who has manipulated the rules to favor them at the expense of others in their niche, and us.
You go ahead though, and keep thinking government is the enemy. It's not.
We may have to experience some seriously bad times in the US, above and beyond what we are seeing right now, before the majority of free market types begin to understand just how badly they've been duped for the last 30 years.
You do realize, of all the modern nations in the world, we here in the US are the only ones foolish enough to actually entertain the idea of free markets, leaving our people and resources ripe for over-exploitation right?
Other nations insure that their people are gainfully employed, and that business profits, but not at the expense of the standard of living of the nation it serves.
Go take a hard look at Germany, for a stellar example of protectionism and globalism working hand in hand to both insure the German quality of life, endurance and competitive nature of it's industry, and the stability of the nation overall.
Here, lack of regulation has brought us a condition where the US imports far more than it produces, causing us to grow more poor every year, as big business pulls wealth from the nation, using overseas labor, to increase it's profit above and beyond what is otherwise healthy for all involved.
When we had common sense regulations, that insured that business operated in ways that did not do harm to the society, we did very well in the US, not having the kinds of problems we do today.
The GOP set the expectation that government is the problem, and did so 30 years ago, leaving us today with very low national production, high demand and high consumption, and very little means of wealth production, compared to our basic needs.
That's toxic, and completely undesirable, and a direct consequense of deregulation, which permitted the companies to put our people in competition with those of much lesser means.
Good citizens, of modern nations, need to not take that kind of shit, having the self-respect to understand what needs to be checked and what does not, and the outsourcing of jobs needs to be checked, yesterday.
Free markets are the great equalizer. Instead of having our future under our control, everybody involved in a deregulated market will end up doing equally shitty.
Go ahead. Ask around. The truth is out there, if you leave our borders for a few polite conversations.
in the world.
Governments set market rules and are responsible for deciding what is GOOD business and what isn't. The "free market" idea simply says that all business is good business, which it isn't.
X has a LOT of power, but remains poorly understood.
Now we are going to get applications targeted to a single user GUI, and with that all the problems the other OSes have with their single user GUI. :(
Well, you live in a place where that trust is denied to you. That's not a technical problem. It is a social / civics problem you've got there.
Where I live, we value voting, and we've taken steps to insure that all the core attributes of a trustworthy election are in place and operating, and that the public can be secure in how it all works.
Lots of people share your concern, and on the current electronics, that's a very healthy concern. Same for States that have very aggressive caging operations going on, challenges, etc...
Selling / building technology to address social and legal problems is a double edge sword. Where I live, we dealt with the civics, and have few to no issues, and can fully recount visually, with peer review, if necessary.
I like that solution, because it keeps the people in control of things, and it doesn't advance the "code as law" idea in a material way.
Doing things like this electronically does. What happens when the law varies, and the machines do not, or more importantly, the machines being pervasive challenges the law, or simply ignore it, doing their own thing?
Can happen with things other than votes you know. Do we really want that?
I don't.
Doesn't all that checking significantly reduce the value proposition?
Seems to me, we are much better off using our people and simple tech to do our civics.
I don't see where this actually solves a problem.
Will people actually check?
Actually, with the paper system, we do know the votes are counted. We use simple audits to know the counting is correct, and if we do need to actually recount, or put those votes in a court of law, the actual action of the voter, and thus their intent is there, human readable, without the need for expensive enabling technology.
I do think it's a interesting solution, I just don't see where we've got a problem with the civics that requires it, or where it's value exceeds that of simple, common sense methods.
One thing about using paper to record the vote intent is civics scale. For any population, we've got enough elderly and unemployed people to perform that duty, and why not have them do it? It is, after all, their election, where everything should be transparent.
In fact, a trustworthy election needs to embody all four of these to the maximum extent possible:
Transparent -- The record of the vote can be seen and followed from record made by voter through to the tally. Where we have enabling technology, we have a loss of transparency. A lot of this solution is selling the position of forced trust we place on the voter, due to the record of the vote not being a enduring thing.
Oversight -- It must be possible for ordinary people to understand the entire process from vote cast to tally, and this depends on transparency. VBM is really easy. Computer assisted printed votes, can roll this way too.
Freedom -- One must be free to vote, or not, as we feel fit.
Anonymity -- The record of the vote must not be identified or linked to the voter. Good, robust paper systems, like VBM, allow authentication via signature, or something, then seperate that from the ballots so cast.
Interesting solution though. I think it's a comp-sci type challenge that's worth the effort, but I don't see the core value proposition of it being a net savings that is compelling enough to bother otherwise.
At some point, doing our civics requires a bit of time and effort, and that actually raises the value of the civics in a healthy way.
Much better, IMHO, to do that using people, and a simple, clear, enduring record of the voter intent, not requiring expensive enabling technology to vet, tally, and be present in a court of law.