Playing pirated games isn't 100% of the use of a modchip either, depending on the system. As is currently being discussed in another branch of this thread, the XBOX (not 360) made a lovely media player when modded.
To be fair though I'd have to admit that playing pirated games is the primary use for a modchip in many cases. I'm not really here to argue the point with you in any determined way.
I doubt that pirating is any major reason at all for modchip, I'd guess that removing regional locking, allowing backup's of your games (even better, use burned DVD-R copy for playing, keep the pressed disc as failsafe), 3rd party software / OS use, etc. are far more common reasons - and I also believe that majority of those who pirate do it on PC's, for obvious reasons.
I haven't really been paying attention to what Sony has been doing (don't own a PS3), but I wonder if Sony really cares about modchipping itself, or if they just want to keep modded consoles off of PSN?
The latter seems reasonable to me... If you want to mod the console, fine. Just don't expect to be allowed to play in the sandbox with all of the unmodded consoles. You know if they let modded consoles on that games would be flooded by griefers and other annoying breeds of adolescent (chronological or mental).
Not picking a fight, just wondering if I'm missing something...
Is there some fundamental difference in PC and PS game market that causes something you have always been able to do with PC's to wreak havoc if allowed with PSN?
Or do similar networks (ie. Steam?) on PC gaming world already suffer badly from whatever would-be problems PSN does not have? If so, how exactly (and how large the issues are?) would, let's say, WoW benefit if it were only available for PS + PSN and with modded consoles banned?
Sony is already on my "blacklisted forever" category for all the dirty (root kits...) criminal (...malware...) and just plain unfair (banning OtherOS even for those who bought PS3 when OtherOS was specifically marketed as feature by sony) stuff they have done - I don't see why I should think I could ever trust them or treat me with respect as their customer - so this is not a bug issue for me personally, but with my current knowledge I'd say that this banning of modders serves no purpose that benefits the end user.
I'd agree if the patents weren't bogus and obvious. If we had a patent system that actually granted patents of merit and not a rubber stamp this would make sense.
Go read some of these patent. It's isn't revolutionary stuff, it's just who won the horse race for patenting "clicking icon to make something happen" and the like.
Not to mention "clicking icon to make something happen - on a mobile device".
The IPO has no interest in helping developing countries transition to a more sustainable economy if it means sacrificing valuable IPR.
In other stunning news, the rich still have it better than the poor, politicians don't have the best interests of their citizens at heart, and 2013 won't be the "Year of Linux."
Since when has anyone WITH that much valuable IP ever given it up freely? Oh sure, here and there, a token gesture. But does anyone really expect Monsanto or Intel to give up their *entire business model* and *everything that makes them money* tomorrow because some third-world country is poor? Not likely.
And to be brutally honest, how is it really fair to ask them to? If they paid for the R&D, why should someone else be entitled to it without paying a cent?
To be brutally honest, I don't care a flying fsck what would happen to Imaginary Property Rights of multinational companies perfectly capable of making profit without any (more) help from starving 3rd world countries who's last concern should be if some superpowers have granted companies the "right" for something not property to be treated like property.
In fact, how is it fair to expect them to ask (beg, like a good poor person should) for "rights" to Imaginary Property.
Is it some first-world tech company's fault that your country is poor, that your government is too corrupt to invest in its infrastructure instead of padding El-Presidente's pockets, that your education system is a joke? Sure it would be a great charitable gesture for them to give it to you at a big discount, but that hardly gives you the right to *demand* it. You're certainly not entitled to it just because you're poor. And it probably wouldn't even do you any good, in the long term anyway, unless you deal with the underlying problems in your country that put you in poverty to begin with (El Presidente will just stuff his pockets deeper with any new money too).
Or maybe this is yet another in a laundry list of massive reasons why "imaginary" ***property*** is a broken concept altogether and should not be honored by anyone, anywhere, ever.
Could not have said it simpler myself, mod that up!
Social Security is a DISASTER. It covers people equally more than they paid in. And you and I are on the hook for it. It is a Ponzi scheme, plain and system and will collapse eventually.
Reality and history suggest otherwise - there is nothing I know of indicating that my country (or any other, but I know mine the best) will end up in any "collapse level issues" because of social security (on the contrary). How long would it take then?
Also, in regards to your sig, in real capitalism, the government has no powers that corporations can control.
I'm not going to argue your claim of "real capitalism" here as it's not relevant to what my sig says - and it's a sig anyway, and meant to be taken half seriously at it.
I blame program developers for allowing the Start Menu to become such a mess. Why create a folder named after the software developer? If I want to play Grand Theft Auto 4, I don't want to browse to "Rockstar Games" first. Ideally, they would create a single icon under "Games". Why put a shortcut to the uninstaller on the Start Menu? If I want to uninstall your program, I'll go to Add/Remove Programs. I really don't need a shortcut to your website on my Start Menu. If I want to look at your website, I'll freakin' Google it.
This is why I really like how menus are done in Linux (and, I would assume, other modern *nix systems follow the same way too - at least major desktop environments do) - programs are so easy to find by category... Back in my Windows days with '95 I actually did organize my Start Menu this way too, though it needed maintenance:)
People pin the programs they use the most and in that way there is less start menu items being used total, but for infrequently used programs one usually accesses them via the start menu.
So basically Microsoft is saying that since you use certain programs 90+% of the time you don't need an easy way to access the ones you don't use on a regular basis. That is actually one of my main complaints in regards to using Linux so I think it is funny Microsoft is fucking this up in this way.
Um, how is this a problem with using Linux? I can only assume that you are referring to some specific distro and a specific default desktop environment it offers? In that case it's not really a problem with using Linux, just change to another DE.
I think you are confusing rules for living - something partly set by society, partly by parents, etc. - with views, opinions and reasoning here... Clearly what Just Some Guy is saying is not that rules set by parent (him) are "just opinions" open to be questioned (as in not respected) freely, while he probably is ready for open civilized discussion about the rules and the reasoning for them.
This does not throw parental authority away, in fact it makes it stronger. People of all ages respect rules better if they get to discuss them and hear the reasoning behind them rather than being simply dictated "this is how it goes because I say so", even if they disagree with them - and it does provide reasonable way for the child to question the rules and parents to adjust their views if they deem it reasonable. This is especially important with teenagers, with who you can easily lose respect if your rules are seen only as tyranny through parenthood with no chance to even discuss the reasoning behind.
Sure you can just act like unquestionable rules, and depending on your kids you may even be able to enforce your rules, but you will still teach your kid obedience (at best) without respect for authority - that's not good for you, for your kids nor for their attitude towards authorities in general.
Finally I don't understand where you get the idea about "purpose of undermining authority" - I don't see anything like that on the parenting philosophy of Just Some Guy, quite the opposite.
Destruction of evidence is NOT more important than the preservation of human life, particularly innocent human life. Police have killed more than one child and more than one innocent adult using their mercenary tactics. In some cases they have even raided the wrong house and killed people.
Not to mention how many innocent children (and adults too) have likely been deeply traumatized by the experience - when a small children sees police force busting in, acting violently, threatening people (like their parents) with deadly force, killing family pets, possibly accidentally killing their parent(s) or sister(s), etc. one can only imagine what that does to him/her - hell, it could cause deep mental problems for the rest of their lives even to adults, let alone children.
It's this kind of things why I don't consider USA to be a "civilized modern world country" and won't likely travel there until some major development (although I'd like to see your country once) as it does not seem safe enough... I'm going to visit our eastern neighbor, Russia, someday though - not that there aren't issues there, but I'm not that scared of them.
Gee whiz, somebody on slashdot who is bad at math. It's not about you moron. It's about the general population and what they do. Put me in a skirt and call me Sally.
Ummm, so telling people you've changed your habits for the better and trying to encourage others to change their ways too makes him a moron? Was your point that "it's not about you, so just give it up as it won't matter anyway", because if not then I don't get your fit.
Charity is one thing, the government... that's something completely different. If you are poor you need charity, not government. I like to consider myself charitable. I would gladly donate money to help people in need. However, I see that there is a huge difference between that and FORCING others to pay for charity.
Well, I for one want to be either supported by government or pay taxes for government to support those in need. I'm glad I live in a country where things are better on this front than in most other countries - even many that are doing generally really well.
It sickens me to see a so called "1st world country" where people care so little - and charity? Well, it doesn't seem to work that well in comparison - social security system does things better, it covers people in need more equally (where with charities some get this and others get that, nobody is secure, no knowledge how things go next month, week or even day and finally the streets will be left much less safe while the (other) costs for society will remain higher than with proper social security system.
This is just what I see by observing the world around me, but I don't know why anyone would like to pay more to get less.
No, no, no, no, no! Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They aren't long.
The government does not exist on the simple idea that it should provide things we don't want to pay for individually. Nowhere in there does it say anything about that. The government exists for ONE reason. To preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And no, providing healthcare is not the government preserving life.
Of course it is - someone claiming otherwise with a straight face would feel bizarre to me if I had not already been baffled on how most of the rest western countries (and others...) get this, but for some reason people just go apeshit about it in USA and start drooling while babbling about Chairman Mao:x
...it worries me, to be truthful - and it saddens me how people in 3rd world countries, and in USA, suffer so much because lack of proper health care:/
If you liked Public Housing, the Public Post, and Public Schools, you're going to LOVE Public Health Care.
Finnish post used to work better before it was privatized - too bad, though the change is not that large it's still for worse:(
Yeah, we have public housing too, even though the waiting line for an apartment is looooong in capital city (Helsinki) it still provides good quality rent apartments for those who can't afford (or have other problems getting one) to rent on private market - can't really see what's supposed to be so negative about this.
Public Schools? Yeah, it's uncommon in Finland not go to public school and education is free here (yes, even universities - if there are tuition fees the government gives students aid).
We must be doing horribly? Let's check Finland and PISA scoring - well, looks like we are the highest ranking OECD country. Yeah, I would not change our system to what you get, where parents income (and number of other things you can't affect, including plain luck) can prevent a kid from getting proper education.
Public Health Care, which is not what you are getting either, is one of the great things in Finland - and without it I could not afford my ADHD medication, which I guess would not be that bad issue as likely I'd never gotten diagnosed for it anyway... I probably would not have succeeded finishing my grades in that case - which I did in private school that Finnish government paid.
Yeah, I'm not that convinced of these things being bad at all, seeing that all of them are (or was, in case of Post Office) working well and seem to provide us advantages over your system... Can you teach me why Finland is a total failure because of such things? Or at least what improvement we could get ditching them?
Ignoring other pocket computers, I believe Nokias Communicator is much older than iphone - and it was very viable smartphone at it's time. He was sure the first to succesfully market such thing for large masses though, but communicators, ie., were not exactly commercial failures either. Let's not start rewriting some imagenary history.
...and what has gotten done seems worse than if they had done nothing at all - the informative posts I've read of this so called "charity" were sad to read... It changed my opinion of BG as evil IT man with a good side on charity to a plain evil sociopath. Don't know where exactly he turned out this way, but seems it has been a slow process since the begining of his software career.
First, reindeers live only in north Finland, I'm not sure they even produce cheese from reindeer milk, but in north they prefer strong spirits, moonshine and beer of course - never even heard of fermented milk, reindeer or otherwise.
Of course you are joking, but I'm writing this reply because you never know what the Yankees, who think we have polar bears in Finland, will take as fact;D
Slashdot Mirror
Playing pirated games isn't 100% of the use of a modchip either, depending on the system. As is currently being discussed in another branch of this thread, the XBOX (not 360) made a lovely media player when modded.
To be fair though I'd have to admit that playing pirated games is the primary use for a modchip in many cases. I'm not really here to argue the point with you in any determined way.
I doubt that pirating is any major reason at all for modchip, I'd guess that removing regional locking, allowing backup's of your games (even better, use burned DVD-R copy for playing, keep the pressed disc as failsafe), 3rd party software / OS use, etc. are far more common reasons - and I also believe that majority of those who pirate do it on PC's, for obvious reasons.
I haven't really been paying attention to what Sony has been doing (don't own a PS3), but I wonder if Sony really cares about modchipping itself, or if they just want to keep modded consoles off of PSN?
The latter seems reasonable to me... If you want to mod the console, fine. Just don't expect to be allowed to play in the sandbox with all of the unmodded consoles. You know if they let modded consoles on that games would be flooded by griefers and other annoying breeds of adolescent (chronological or mental).
Not picking a fight, just wondering if I'm missing something...
Is there some fundamental difference in PC and PS game market that causes something you have always been able to do with PC's to wreak havoc if allowed with PSN?
Or do similar networks (ie. Steam?) on PC gaming world already suffer badly from whatever would-be problems PSN does not have? If so, how exactly (and how large the issues are?) would, let's say, WoW benefit if it were only available for PS + PSN and with modded consoles banned?
Sony is already on my "blacklisted forever" category for all the dirty (root kits...) criminal (...malware...) and just plain unfair (banning OtherOS even for those who bought PS3 when OtherOS was specifically marketed as feature by sony) stuff they have done - I don't see why I should think I could ever trust them or treat me with respect as their customer - so this is not a bug issue for me personally, but with my current knowledge I'd say that this banning of modders serves no purpose that benefits the end user.
Këwl, this is something no doubt many people have hoped and waited to happen (or worried that it won't), and I'm rooting for Google on this move :)
Unless you are talking of the "near perfect clone of the iPhone" market.
Different case, different model.
I'd agree if the patents weren't bogus and obvious. If we had a patent system that actually granted patents of merit and not a rubber stamp this would make sense.
Go read some of these patent. It's isn't revolutionary stuff, it's just who won the horse race for patenting "clicking icon to make something happen" and the like.
Not to mention "clicking icon to make something happen - on a mobile device".
The IPO has no interest in helping developing countries transition to a more sustainable economy if it means sacrificing valuable IPR.
In other stunning news, the rich still have it better than the poor, politicians don't have the best interests of their citizens at heart, and 2013 won't be the "Year of Linux."
Since when has anyone WITH that much valuable IP ever given it up freely? Oh sure, here and there, a token gesture. But does anyone really expect Monsanto or Intel to give up their *entire business model* and *everything that makes them money* tomorrow because some third-world country is poor? Not likely.
And to be brutally honest, how is it really fair to ask them to? If they paid for the R&D, why should someone else be entitled to it without paying a cent?
To be brutally honest, I don't care a flying fsck what would happen to Imaginary Property Rights of multinational companies perfectly capable of making profit without any (more) help from starving 3rd world countries who's last concern should be if some superpowers have granted companies the "right" for something not property to be treated like property.
In fact, how is it fair to expect them to ask (beg, like a good poor person should) for "rights" to Imaginary Property.
Is it some first-world tech company's fault that your country is poor, that your government is too corrupt to invest in its infrastructure instead of padding El-Presidente's pockets, that your education system is a joke? Sure it would be a great charitable gesture for them to give it to you at a big discount, but that hardly gives you the right to *demand* it. You're certainly not entitled to it just because you're poor. And it probably wouldn't even do you any good, in the long term anyway, unless you deal with the underlying problems in your country that put you in poverty to begin with (El Presidente will just stuff his pockets deeper with any new money too).
Over simplifying ignorance much here?
Or maybe this is yet another in a laundry list of massive reasons why "imaginary" ***property*** is a broken concept altogether and should not be honored by anyone, anywhere, ever.
Could not have said it simpler myself, mod that up!
Social Security is a DISASTER. It covers people equally more than they paid in. And you and I are on the hook for it. It is a Ponzi scheme, plain and system and will collapse eventually.
Reality and history suggest otherwise - there is nothing I know of indicating that my country (or any other, but I know mine the best) will end up in any "collapse level issues" because of social security (on the contrary). How long would it take then?
Also, in regards to your sig, in real capitalism, the government has no powers that corporations can control.
I'm not going to argue your claim of "real capitalism" here as it's not relevant to what my sig says - and it's a sig anyway, and meant to be taken half seriously at it.
I blame program developers for allowing the Start Menu to become such a mess. Why create a folder named after the software developer? If I want to play Grand Theft Auto 4, I don't want to browse to "Rockstar Games" first. Ideally, they would create a single icon under "Games". Why put a shortcut to the uninstaller on the Start Menu? If I want to uninstall your program, I'll go to Add/Remove Programs. I really don't need a shortcut to your website on my Start Menu. If I want to look at your website, I'll freakin' Google it.
This is why I really like how menus are done in Linux (and, I would assume, other modern *nix systems follow the same way too - at least major desktop environments do) - programs are so easy to find by category... Back in my Windows days with '95 I actually did organize my Start Menu this way too, though it needed maintenance :)
It is a misinterpretation of the data.
People pin the programs they use the most and in that way there is less start menu items being used total, but for infrequently used programs one usually accesses them via the start menu.
So basically Microsoft is saying that since you use certain programs 90+% of the time you don't need an easy way to access the ones you don't use on a regular basis. That is actually one of my main complaints in regards to using Linux so I think it is funny Microsoft is fucking this up in this way.
Um, how is this a problem with using Linux? I can only assume that you are referring to some specific distro and a specific default desktop environment it offers? In that case it's not really a problem with using Linux, just change to another DE.
That was simply hilarious :D Thanks you and congrats for likely trolling several people reading this :D
I think you are confusing rules for living - something partly set by society, partly by parents, etc. - with views, opinions and reasoning here... Clearly what Just Some Guy is saying is not that rules set by parent (him) are "just opinions" open to be questioned (as in not respected) freely, while he probably is ready for open civilized discussion about the rules and the reasoning for them.
This does not throw parental authority away, in fact it makes it stronger. People of all ages respect rules better if they get to discuss them and hear the reasoning behind them rather than being simply dictated "this is how it goes because I say so", even if they disagree with them - and it does provide reasonable way for the child to question the rules and parents to adjust their views if they deem it reasonable. This is especially important with teenagers, with who you can easily lose respect if your rules are seen only as tyranny through parenthood with no chance to even discuss the reasoning behind.
Sure you can just act like unquestionable rules, and depending on your kids you may even be able to enforce your rules, but you will still teach your kid obedience (at best) without respect for authority - that's not good for you, for your kids nor for their attitude towards authorities in general.
Finally I don't understand where you get the idea about "purpose of undermining authority" - I don't see anything like that on the parenting philosophy of Just Some Guy, quite the opposite.
...and I don't mean the dog :(
Destruction of evidence is NOT more important than the preservation of human life, particularly innocent human life. Police have killed more than one child and more than one innocent adult using their mercenary tactics. In some cases they have even raided the wrong house and killed people.
Not to mention how many innocent children (and adults too) have likely been deeply traumatized by the experience - when a small children sees police force busting in, acting violently, threatening people (like their parents) with deadly force, killing family pets, possibly accidentally killing their parent(s) or sister(s), etc. one can only imagine what that does to him/her - hell, it could cause deep mental problems for the rest of their lives even to adults, let alone children.
It's this kind of things why I don't consider USA to be a "civilized modern world country" and won't likely travel there until some major development (although I'd like to see your country once) as it does not seem safe enough... I'm going to visit our eastern neighbor, Russia, someday though - not that there aren't issues there, but I'm not that scared of them.
Lynx is an ugly choice for text console browser - eLinks is much better in rendering, customization, user interface, etc.
Gee whiz, somebody on slashdot who is bad at math. It's not about you moron. It's about the general population and what they do. Put me in a skirt and call me Sally.
Ummm, so telling people you've changed your habits for the better and trying to encourage others to change their ways too makes him a moron? Was your point that "it's not about you, so just give it up as it won't matter anyway", because if not then I don't get your fit.
Mod this up!
Charity is one thing, the government... that's something completely different. If you are poor you need charity, not government. I like to consider myself charitable. I would gladly donate money to help people in need. However, I see that there is a huge difference between that and FORCING others to pay for charity.
Well, I for one want to be either supported by government or pay taxes for government to support those in need. I'm glad I live in a country where things are better on this front than in most other countries - even many that are doing generally really well.
It sickens me to see a so called "1st world country" where people care so little - and charity? Well, it doesn't seem to work that well in comparison - social security system does things better, it covers people in need more equally (where with charities some get this and others get that, nobody is secure, no knowledge how things go next month, week or even day and finally the streets will be left much less safe while the (other) costs for society will remain higher than with proper social security system.
This is just what I see by observing the world around me, but I don't know why anyone would like to pay more to get less.
No, no, no, no, no! Read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They aren't long.
The government does not exist on the simple idea that it should provide things we don't want to pay for individually. Nowhere in there does it say anything about that. The government exists for ONE reason. To preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And no, providing healthcare is not the government preserving life.
Of course it is - someone claiming otherwise with a straight face would feel bizarre to me if I had not already been baffled on how most of the rest western countries (and others...) get this, but for some reason people just go apeshit about it in USA and start drooling while babbling about Chairman Mao :x
...it worries me, to be truthful - and it saddens me how people in 3rd world countries, and in USA, suffer so much because lack of proper health care :/
If you liked Public Housing, the Public Post, and Public Schools, you're going to LOVE Public Health Care.
Finnish post used to work better before it was privatized - too bad, though the change is not that large it's still for worse :(
Yeah, we have public housing too, even though the waiting line for an apartment is looooong in capital city (Helsinki) it still provides good quality rent apartments for those who can't afford (or have other problems getting one) to rent on private market - can't really see what's supposed to be so negative about this.
Public Schools? Yeah, it's uncommon in Finland not go to public school and education is free here (yes, even universities - if there are tuition fees the government gives students aid).
We must be doing horribly? Let's check Finland and PISA scoring - well, looks like we are the highest ranking OECD country. Yeah, I would not change our system to what you get, where parents income (and number of other things you can't affect, including plain luck) can prevent a kid from getting proper education.
Public Health Care, which is not what you are getting either, is one of the great things in Finland - and without it I could not afford my ADHD medication, which I guess would not be that bad issue as likely I'd never gotten diagnosed for it anyway... I probably would not have succeeded finishing my grades in that case - which I did in private school that Finnish government paid.
Yeah, I'm not that convinced of these things being bad at all, seeing that all of them are (or was, in case of Post Office) working well and seem to provide us advantages over your system... Can you teach me why Finland is a total failure because of such things? Or at least what improvement we could get ditching them?
Ignoring other pocket computers, I believe Nokias Communicator is much older than iphone - and it was very viable smartphone at it's time. He was sure the first to succesfully market such thing for large masses though, but communicators, ie., were not exactly commercial failures either. Let's not start rewriting some imagenary history.
Excellent summary, even enjoyable to read when I already knew it - I'd say people should mod you up, but seems they already did :)
...and what has gotten done seems worse than if they had done nothing at all - the informative posts I've read of this so called "charity" were sad to read... It changed my opinion of BG as evil IT man with a good side on charity to a plain evil sociopath. Don't know where exactly he turned out this way, but seems it has been a slow process since the begining of his software career.
Word, point and all that - lost my mod points when taking too long to read other discussions, mod this up ^
First, reindeers live only in north Finland, I'm not sure they even produce cheese from reindeer milk, but in north they prefer strong spirits, moonshine and beer of course - never even heard of fermented milk, reindeer or otherwise.
Of course you are joking, but I'm writing this reply because you never know what the Yankees, who think we have polar bears in Finland, will take as fact ;D