From the article:
"...newcomers to the military service build up the endurance they need to get in shape safely."
Allowing trainees to play games to get in shape goes against almost everything the military is supposed to teach soldiers. Soldiers are expected to spends weeks or months in the field where there might not be electricity and clean water, forget entertainment electronic. Soldiers should learn to rough it and exercise even when it's difficult or boring.
If the new recruits cannot take the standard training, perhaps there should be a "pre-boot camp", but to allow them to play games? Insane.
Both illegal downloaders and the music industry know that it is pretty much impossible to sue every filesharer. This knowledge is basically what keeps filesharers going. The only reason that organizations like the SIAA sue individual parties for ridiculous sums of money is to induce fear in the overwhelming majority of filesharers and thereby cut down filesharing as much as possible by pure psychology. Coupling this video with the real-life verdicts carried out on a few of the millions of filesharers will effectively cause many eleven-year-olds to piss their pants in fear and not download that album.
What the SIAA doesn't realize that the average eleven-year-old that will actually be intimidated by this will probably not BUY any albums either, and that almost all filesharers will simply see through the scare tactics and filesharing will live on. Therefore, what this amounts to is just a ton of money wasted by the SIAA on a stupid music video that will at best serve to entertain the public on youtube.
The SIAA made a good move with their first video from the 90s; they appealed to people's sense of morality, detailing how much work is put into a game and why it is worth it to support the creators. Though appealing to conscience wouldn't stop all filesharing, people would at least feel moved to pay for games (or other media) that they enjoyed, supporting an industry of quality. I do not know why they have resorted to useless fearmongering instead.
If the newspapers don't make money, journalists and photographers are not paid. If journalists and photographers are not paid, they will not risk going into dangerous situations to learn the truth (remember the two journalists held in North Korea) and the truth will have to come out through amateur bloggers and cell phone pictures, which all of you must admit is often inaccurate or uninformative. News costs money.
Perhaps taxing internet use is not the right way to support the news industry, but if people quit paying for papers, some sort of tax will be necessary simply to keep the industry alive in any country.
And before anyone replies suggesting it, online advertising revenues will never come close to covering the costs of quality reporting.
They're planning on launching this in 2012, and it's just a test. What with delays, bureaucracy and imminent lack of funding due to the world economy, you can't expect Europe to get actual people into space until at best 2018, at which point American private companies, Russia, and China will be headed for the moon, if not already there. The Orion program seems much the same to me.
This is only good for http, and he mentioned that his employer wants to block all objectionable traffic, and this can include ftp, irc, and other protocols. You'd also have to block all non-http traffic.
This is good for the IT industry in the states. This'll create more jobs and shows that it's still practical to have IT services in the US. Maybe the outsourcing craze is slowing down and the future of US computech isn't as bleak as it seems.
No matter how hard AMD tries, ATI will be a second choice for linux-box builders for years at least. The Nvidia drivers are currently much more reliable than their ATI counterparts, and forcing Nvidia's reputation for greatness to disappear will be very tough for ATI, unless Nvidia screws up big-time. It's nice to see that they're trying, though.
Even if Google refused to release the usernames simply because of moral fiber, this works out very nicely for them. The public will now view them as "the good guys" and this will of course improve business for them. Furthermore, this serves to counteract the awful knowledge that Google keeps these logs at all; consumers will no longer be afraid to use Google's products, since they supposedly will not use their knowledge for "evil".
Well, actually, the only console I own is a PSX which I got used for 40 bucks. But the fact is that even though what you say is true, the consumer doesn't see it that way. If a computer is priced at 800-1000$, the buyer won't think "Hey, I can do other stuff with that too, so it's not too bad", he'll think "800 bucks! No way, I'm better off with a Wii!". Most people won't go into deep introspection when buying, and so, pc gaming suffers.
If this is true, what does the RIAA intend to gain from this? It won't stop or even discourage piracy. People recording streams or radio broadcasts do have easy access to simple tape recorders, and mass distribution pirates will simply use a different machine. All this does is annoy people and put a dent in Dell's sales. What is the point???
IMHO, the problem in PC gaming today is that obtaining hardware that is comparable to modern consoles, and capable of playing brand-new high-end games takes a HUGE dent in the wallet. Getting the graphical equivalent of a Wii on a PC would cost hundreds more than a PS3 (Which is considered a real money-eater). Why would anyone pay over a thousand dollars to play games equivalent to games they would play on a console for much less? Also, now that consoles offer online play, there is no advantage to gaming on a computer, except for complex rpgs where a keyboard is more comfortable than a controller (Which may explain the success of Warcraft and Co.). If PC game companies want to sell more, they must invent new ways to take advantage of the pc's unique qualities, or somehow drastically reduce the price of high-end hardware.
Doesn't this seem as if Microsoft wants to weaken people's firewalls for evil purposes? Microsoft can make a lot of money selling exploits to "data mining" companies.
Why are the uber-corporations against P2P? It's the perfect paradigm of dynamic community-based sharing of innovation and ideas, and is the pinnacle of Web 2.0. With all those buzzwords, it must be good for business!
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: "...newcomers to the military service build up the endurance they need to get in shape safely." Allowing trainees to play games to get in shape goes against almost everything the military is supposed to teach soldiers. Soldiers are expected to spends weeks or months in the field where there might not be electricity and clean water, forget entertainment electronic. Soldiers should learn to rough it and exercise even when it's difficult or boring. If the new recruits cannot take the standard training, perhaps there should be a "pre-boot camp", but to allow them to play games? Insane.
There is no mention in the article of HOW that rover will get up there in 2011. Does anyone know what it's launch vehicle is planned to be?
Both illegal downloaders and the music industry know that it is pretty much impossible to sue every filesharer. This knowledge is basically what keeps filesharers going. The only reason that organizations like the SIAA sue individual parties for ridiculous sums of money is to induce fear in the overwhelming majority of filesharers and thereby cut down filesharing as much as possible by pure psychology. Coupling this video with the real-life verdicts carried out on a few of the millions of filesharers will effectively cause many eleven-year-olds to piss their pants in fear and not download that album. What the SIAA doesn't realize that the average eleven-year-old that will actually be intimidated by this will probably not BUY any albums either, and that almost all filesharers will simply see through the scare tactics and filesharing will live on. Therefore, what this amounts to is just a ton of money wasted by the SIAA on a stupid music video that will at best serve to entertain the public on youtube. The SIAA made a good move with their first video from the 90s; they appealed to people's sense of morality, detailing how much work is put into a game and why it is worth it to support the creators. Though appealing to conscience wouldn't stop all filesharing, people would at least feel moved to pay for games (or other media) that they enjoyed, supporting an industry of quality. I do not know why they have resorted to useless fearmongering instead.
If the newspapers don't make money, journalists and photographers are not paid. If journalists and photographers are not paid, they will not risk going into dangerous situations to learn the truth (remember the two journalists held in North Korea) and the truth will have to come out through amateur bloggers and cell phone pictures, which all of you must admit is often inaccurate or uninformative. News costs money. Perhaps taxing internet use is not the right way to support the news industry, but if people quit paying for papers, some sort of tax will be necessary simply to keep the industry alive in any country. And before anyone replies suggesting it, online advertising revenues will never come close to covering the costs of quality reporting.
For if god is proven, there will be no need for faith, and in a puff of logic, god will disappear. This bookie obviously read Douglas Adams.
They're planning on launching this in 2012, and it's just a test. What with delays, bureaucracy and imminent lack of funding due to the world economy, you can't expect Europe to get actual people into space until at best 2018, at which point American private companies, Russia, and China will be headed for the moon, if not already there. The Orion program seems much the same to me.
It's not Obama that's the winner here, but Nancy Pelosi. Now she can pass her most insane proposals without being vetoed.
This is only good for http, and he mentioned that his employer wants to block all objectionable traffic, and this can include ftp, irc, and other protocols. You'd also have to block all non-http traffic.
This is good for the IT industry in the states. This'll create more jobs and shows that it's still practical to have IT services in the US. Maybe the outsourcing craze is slowing down and the future of US computech isn't as bleak as it seems.
No matter how hard AMD tries, ATI will be a second choice for linux-box builders for years at least. The Nvidia drivers are currently much more reliable than their ATI counterparts, and forcing Nvidia's reputation for greatness to disappear will be very tough for ATI, unless Nvidia screws up big-time. It's nice to see that they're trying, though.
Even if Google refused to release the usernames simply because of moral fiber, this works out very nicely for them. The public will now view them as "the good guys" and this will of course improve business for them. Furthermore, this serves to counteract the awful knowledge that Google keeps these logs at all; consumers will no longer be afraid to use Google's products, since they supposedly will not use their knowledge for "evil".
Well, actually, the only console I own is a PSX which I got used for 40 bucks. But the fact is that even though what you say is true, the consumer doesn't see it that way. If a computer is priced at 800-1000$, the buyer won't think "Hey, I can do other stuff with that too, so it's not too bad", he'll think "800 bucks! No way, I'm better off with a Wii!". Most people won't go into deep introspection when buying, and so, pc gaming suffers.
If this is true, what does the RIAA intend to gain from this? It won't stop or even discourage piracy. People recording streams or radio broadcasts do have easy access to simple tape recorders, and mass distribution pirates will simply use a different machine. All this does is annoy people and put a dent in Dell's sales. What is the point???
IMHO, the problem in PC gaming today is that obtaining hardware that is comparable to modern consoles, and capable of playing brand-new high-end games takes a HUGE dent in the wallet. Getting the graphical equivalent of a Wii on a PC would cost hundreds more than a PS3 (Which is considered a real money-eater). Why would anyone pay over a thousand dollars to play games equivalent to games they would play on a console for much less? Also, now that consoles offer online play, there is no advantage to gaming on a computer, except for complex rpgs where a keyboard is more comfortable than a controller (Which may explain the success of Warcraft and Co.). If PC game companies want to sell more, they must invent new ways to take advantage of the pc's unique qualities, or somehow drastically reduce the price of high-end hardware.
Doesn't this seem as if Microsoft wants to weaken people's firewalls for evil purposes? Microsoft can make a lot of money selling exploits to "data mining" companies.
Idiots off the streets. Unabashedly lying in front of huge crowds takes a certain emptiness of mind, and that's what it takes to get elected.
That means McCain won't be able to post anything, even though he's a Presidential candidate. Though, McCain never had any hold on the Internet anyway.
Why are the uber-corporations against P2P? It's the perfect paradigm of dynamic community-based sharing of innovation and ideas, and is the pinnacle of Web 2.0. With all those buzzwords, it must be good for business!
I expect all of you will stop griping if you find a way to run it in Wine.