I'd heard all of the bad comments, all of the "What the f were they thinking?"s, and then I actually went down to EB the other day and asked about it, and the guy showed me how to change a game.
Yes -- you have to remove the back cover and the battery. These are two steps you don't have to do with a GBA. But they take all of 1.78243 seconds to accomplish. Really. Snap, pop.
You still have to remove/replace the cartridge and turn it on/off. But then, you have to do that with a GBA, too!
It is almost, but not quite, as complicated as wiping your ass.
There were actually 2 -- Football (later "Football I") and Football 2. The "Classic" is "Football 2." The revised versions use backlit LCD displays; the originals used bright-as-the-sun LED's.
Mattel had a whole line-up of portable electronic games that were initially sold through Sears. The first one, Auto Race, was in 1976, which makes it THE first portable all-electronic handheld game.
Remember that old football game? The same line of games also had basketball, baseball, and at one point they came out with Super Football that allowed you to pass!
And then of course was Parker Bros' MERLIN from 1978. That was one of my favorite road-trip toys ever.
Remember all of the little portable Pac-Man and Space Invaders type games?
I think there's an entire generation grown up now who think that every video game and cartoon ever made was done in Japan.
I've known two former Newton owners who both complained that the sync feature was (as I said in my post) too late in coming, and never worked quite the way they wanted. This is what I'd heard long after the thing was dead.
You forgot the single key failure of the Newton, the one thing that made it useless compared to the Palm -- not power, not cost, not market timing, but the inability to sync the data on-board with a PC. I think they added the feature very late in the development, but by then it was too little, too late.
And with Hypercard, they didn't know what to do with that, either.
In other words, Sculley didn't understand how to make these technologies into things people would actually be able to use. And therein lies his primary failure as a CEO. Now that time has passed, he can look back and see how they would have been useful. So asking him how things are going to be in the future thus doesn't seem to be a promising line of questioning, because his past shows him to be a lousy visionary.
An earlier post made similar good points, and you are both right. I do remember the Windows IME only working with certain applications. It worked well as far as those went, and was easy to install and set up. If a distro includes IME setup for the user already (the version of RH 7.3 I had didn't) then what I'm complaining about is a non-issue as well.
"So wether OSS is better or not is not really the point. For them at least it is better in that they can alter it themselves and not have to depend on a company in america to please please support all the local languages."
You're absolutely right about that. Application-level support in Windows is pretty bad. I was thinking more along the lines of the Chinese/Korean IMEs that were offered a year or so ago when I was trying to get it up and running. That was using RedHat 7.3, so that gives you an idea of when that was. Windows' IME was (still is) quite good and intuitive.
One thing I have to give Microsoft credit for is their foreign-language support and Asian IME's. I had to set up a Linux box for a friend with both Traditional and Simplified Chinese support, and it was nasty to try and figure out. The final result was not quite as simple and easy-to-use as what you'd find in OS X or Windows.
In the light of this, the decision of Eastern governments like China and Korea to go with open-source software is all the more significant. To me, it indicates that they are more than willing to deal with software that may not be as good to gain the benefits of OSS.
"All advertisements are lies anyway; think about it -- they're an attempt to pursuade you to buy some product or service you wouldn't otherwise buy. This requires subterfuge of some sort,..."
What about a product or service you WOULD otherwise buy, if only you knew it existed? For example, most people would like to buy food. You need to know where to buy food. If GroceryMart opens a store in your neighborhood, but out of the way from where you happen to be, then how the hell are you going to know that GroceryMart exists?
Word of mouth. Which is a form of advertising. Or a television spot ("Now on Maple Blvd!"). Or maybe they build a huge sign saying "GROCERY-MART" for people to see.
Now here is a clear example of something people are generally already inclined to buy, and a complete example of a lack of subterfuge.
Now the question is, "Is this the exception?" Of course not. MOST things that are advertised -- financial services, beer, television programs -- are things that people are inclined to want.
What's more, as far as subterfuge goes, there are very strict laws about what claims an advertisement can make. If I say that my company's been in business since 1859, and I've only been in business since 1989, I'm going to find myself hit with a huge fine AND a public-relations disaster. That's why ads are more likely to show people having a good time with a product, rather than actually making claims about a product.
"But I didn't ask some bag of advertising execs to figure out how to "beat" me or "trick" me into buying their crap. I feel no guilt in peering straight through the scams, swindles, and other assorted sales pitches, and helping others to do so."
Most advertised products and services ARE desired by people, and most advertisements only exist so that people will know how to get what they already want. Just because YOU didn't want those things doesn't mean the majority of the people didn't want them. More to the point, I think you do -- or at some point, you will -- want most of the things that are advertised and one time or another.
I understand. A TV show could make claims about a product without a disclaimer. Most TV shows are fiction. Even so-called "Reality" shows are elaborately-staged fiction. Come to think of it, even the News is largely opinion and claims of dubious origin. So ultimately I don't believe what I'm watching anyway; since I don't believe what I'm watching, a product placement could backfire, because any claims made about the product I'm going to automatically assume are fictitious, plot elements, or otherwise dubious. Which means that what I see I am not going to treat in the same way I'll treat something in an infomercial or advertisement. And because of this, I don't think there's a need for a disclaimer. People know they're seeing bullshit anyway.
I hear ya. If you live in an information society, you're going to be pelted with ads. On the other hand those advertisements are part of what make an information society possible. At its most basic level, advertising is just another form of communication -- you need and want things, and other people/companies make things, and you somehow need to find out what's available for you, and they need to let you know that they have stuff. If they don't advertise, you don't know they exist.
Naw, as you know American football's rules came about long before radio and TV. If anything, the 25-second between-play clock is a deterrent to advertising, since most ads are limited to 30 seconds.
I have to agree with the original post. I don't see the big deal here. If you don't want to see ads, turn off the tube. If you don't want to see product placements in your TV series, watch different TV series. Or don't watch the TV at all.
Consider this: I pretty much just watch football on TV, which is nothing but product placements -- not just for the various equipment manufacturers and beer companies, but also for the teams themselves. There are no disclaimers necessary, because if the equipment is bad, I'll get a good chance to see it for myself.
That just means that SCO is now at a position where they have to not only give up on their current claims, but potentially give a few more things up to make this whole thing go away. They've gone from possibly making money on a settlement to now being lucky if they don't end up having to spend money to save their company. They are in deep, deep doo-doo.
The beauty of this is that IBM did it on a Friday. These thoughts -- and today's drop -- are going to have time to marinate before anyone reads SCO's response on Monday morning.
Man, I'm glad IBM's on our side. But then, most well-run corporations are.
Travolta's character in "A Civil Action," Jan Schlichtmann, makes a good observation: If a case ever makes it to court, both sides have lost.
IBM is playing this beautifully from many points of view: They are moving slowly and quietly.
This gives them the appearance of deliberate and thoughtful action. Because there's a good month's worth of rumbling about possible attacks IBM can make before IBM makes them, their claims are never surprising. But because the delay between when the ideas seem to be part of the meme and when IBM makes their action is so long, and because IBM says so very precious little about the suit publicly, the action feels very sudden. And last, the slow movement causes one to think that their case has been very thoroughly researched long before the axe ever falls.
As a result, these counterclaims are absolutely devastating to SCO. Not just because of what they state, but mostly because of how they are stated.
This action serves two goals. One, when it comes to settlement offers, each counterclaim is weakening SCO's ability to make demands with settlement offers. I think that with the first counterclaim, SCO was able to demand much less than at first. I think that with this one, SCO may want to try to make the whole thing go away.
Two -- if SCO is stubborn enough to allow this to go to court, IBM is covering its bases.
IBM has really impressed me lately with their management, which I can summarize with one principle I learned from Dale Carnegie: "Cooperate with the inevitable." They saw Linux's promise and also saw that in the long term, no one would be able to compete with Free, so they began working on ways to make money with that inevitability. And in the short run their handling of SCO has been similar: They have covered all of their bases with this lawsuit.
Contrast this with the RIAA member corporations. Pay specific attention to the corporations' current profitability, stock movement (relative to S&P 500 or any major index), and future prospects. Double-space your answer and turn in on Monday. This assignment represents 33 1/3% of your grade for this class.
You have a good point here, because the point was ringing in my ears as I read the report.
On the one hand, it is true that the combination of Windows' lack of interoperability, closed-source nature, tight integration, and near-monopoly status make it uniquely qualified to spread damaging viruses quickly, better than other operating systems. If you don't take great consideration to how you set up your IT infrastructure, you're going to get burned.
As you say, the problem is ultimately one of policy, not technology. If you know what you're dealing with, if you know what you're doing, you can establish and enforce policies in your IT infrastructure that prevent the spread of viruses. Every time a virus strikes, we hear about it from the ones that don't. We aren't hearing about the places that haven't had problems. They are out there!
Is Windows adoption by itself a danger to national security? Hardly. Bad IT policy is, regardless of OS. So when a group like this overstates their case, it really damages the valid point that Windows IS more difficult than other OSes, that certain things about Windows DO make it dangerous to adopt by a government.
I'd rather hear them talking in more moderate and modest terms. Making overblown claims that aren't easily and obviously supported by the evidence is going to make people think that the pro-OSS/anti-Windows folks are a bunch of frickin' loonies when the slightest bit of investigation can find flaws in the claims.
You're correct that it's a "straw man" to assume that used car sales would be eliminated. You're also correct that you didn't suggest that.
In fact, you didn't say anything about how your mandate for higher-efficiency automobiles would work at all. You made a very extraordinary claim, that such a mandate would be low-cost. All such regulations in the past have had a very high cost; new gasoline formulations in Cali. have led to much higher gas prices (which is effectively a regressive tax), mandates on emissions systems have led to a higher cost for automobiles, mandates on electric cars have high R&D costs that are also passed along to consumers. So perhaps you could take the time to provide details on how to mandate more-efficient driving with a low cost?
Now as for the case of your public education program suggestion, my example -- which is the median case by the way, and thus the people we are most concerned about -- is not a straw man argument: All public education programs cost incredible amounts of money, and effects vary. You can convince people that using cocaine is wrong, but if you try to convince people to wait until they're married to have sex you're going to have much less success. Walking and biking to work isn't realistic for most people.
First, do no harm. Part of this means thinking through the effects of policy changes on the average person. Everyone wants cleaner air and water regardless of the global warming issue, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't inconvenience them dramatically. If you give them recycling bins that they can use conveniently, they will use them. If you don't, they won't.
I myself walk to work when I can. I can, because I make a lot more than the average American and have no kids, and thus I can live in an apartment right next to my job -- and shopping is conveniently located right on my way home. But that's exceptional, especially in California. Most people have to drive from the desert towards the coast, or from less-urban areas in the North to downtown in the South to get to their jobs. Most people have more financial worries than I.
These are the people -- real people, not straw -- that solutions must apply to.
You're a single mom with three kids. You work downtown, because that's the job you could find in this economy. But you live an hour away, because you can't afford a place big enough for three kids in the center of the city. Now because of the structure of the suburbs and the distance, public transportation is impractical. You HAVE to drive.
You have a choice in cars. You can buy the latest clean whiz-bang R&D-supported car, the Honda Insight, for the low, low price of $20k. (Honda has to recoup their R&D money somehow.) Or you can buy a friend's used '94 Buick for $4000. Remember -- you have three hungry mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay.
Now suddenly the government is telling you all about the benefits of biking and walking to work. That you have to get rid of your Buick and buy the Insight. How the heck are you going to fit your whole household into the car to drive them to school?
If you don't pay for it now, you'll have to pay for it later through increased taxes. And of course, all the people you know, your family, your friends -- they're all in the same boat you are. Because they too moved to the suburbs because they couldn't afford housing downtown. They also have to commute a long way to get to work. They also have kids to feed.
So you were saying something about "doing everything that causes no harm?"
"Yes. We should all sit on our asses and do nothing until we are 100% sure."
You're being sarcastic, but that's actually good advice: If you do something NOW and it ends up being the wrong thing, that means just that much less backtracking you'll have to do when you ARE 100% sure.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think you even need a screwdriver to do this."
My God.
You haven't actually seen an N-Gage yet, have ya?
I'd heard all of the bad comments, all of the "What the f were they thinking?"s, and then I actually went down to EB the other day and asked about it, and the guy showed me how to change a game.
Yes -- you have to remove the back cover and the battery. These are two steps you don't have to do with a GBA. But they take all of 1.78243 seconds to accomplish. Really. Snap, pop.
You still have to remove/replace the cartridge and turn it on/off. But then, you have to do that with a GBA, too!
It is almost, but not quite, as complicated as wiping your ass.
Screwdrivers, indeed!
"Considering that the dragon looked an awful lot like a chicken in Adventure, I'd hate to think how those Dune worms would have ended up..."
This is as good a time as any to bring up this:
http://www.homestarrunner.com/main13.html
Hover thy mouse over each button in order, finishing with "e-mail."
Priceless.
There were actually 2 -- Football (later "Football I") and Football 2. The "Classic" is "Football 2." The revised versions use backlit LCD displays; the originals used bright-as-the-sun LED's.
Mattel had a whole line-up of portable electronic games that were initially sold through Sears. The first one, Auto Race, was in 1976, which makes it THE first portable all-electronic handheld game.
Remember that old football game? The same line of games also had basketball, baseball, and at one point they came out with Super Football that allowed you to pass!
And then of course was Parker Bros' MERLIN from 1978. That was one of my favorite road-trip toys ever.
Remember all of the little portable Pac-Man and Space Invaders type games?
I think there's an entire generation grown up now who think that every video game and cartoon ever made was done in Japan.
I've known two former Newton owners who both complained that the sync feature was (as I said in my post) too late in coming, and never worked quite the way they wanted. This is what I'd heard long after the thing was dead.
You forgot the single key failure of the Newton, the one thing that made it useless compared to the Palm -- not power, not cost, not market timing, but the inability to sync the data on-board with a PC. I think they added the feature very late in the development, but by then it was too little, too late.
And with Hypercard, they didn't know what to do with that, either.
In other words, Sculley didn't understand how to make these technologies into things people would actually be able to use. And therein lies his primary failure as a CEO. Now that time has passed, he can look back and see how they would have been useful. So asking him how things are going to be in the future thus doesn't seem to be a promising line of questioning, because his past shows him to be a lousy visionary.
An earlier post made similar good points, and you are both right. I do remember the Windows IME only working with certain applications. It worked well as far as those went, and was easy to install and set up. If a distro includes IME setup for the user already (the version of RH 7.3 I had didn't) then what I'm complaining about is a non-issue as well.
"So wether OSS is better or not is not really the point. For them at least it is better in that they can alter it themselves and not have to depend on a company in america to please please support all the local languages."
You're absolutely right about that. Application-level support in Windows is pretty bad. I was thinking more along the lines of the Chinese/Korean IMEs that were offered a year or so ago when I was trying to get it up and running. That was using RedHat 7.3, so that gives you an idea of when that was. Windows' IME was (still is) quite good and intuitive.
One thing I have to give Microsoft credit for is their foreign-language support and Asian IME's. I had to set up a Linux box for a friend with both Traditional and Simplified Chinese support, and it was nasty to try and figure out. The final result was not quite as simple and easy-to-use as what you'd find in OS X or Windows.
In the light of this, the decision of Eastern governments like China and Korea to go with open-source software is all the more significant. To me, it indicates that they are more than willing to deal with software that may not be as good to gain the benefits of OSS.
"All advertisements are lies anyway; think about it -- they're an attempt to pursuade you to buy some product or service you wouldn't otherwise buy. This requires subterfuge of some sort, ..."
What about a product or service you WOULD otherwise buy, if only you knew it existed? For example, most people would like to buy food. You need to know where to buy food. If GroceryMart opens a store in your neighborhood, but out of the way from where you happen to be, then how the hell are you going to know that GroceryMart exists?
Word of mouth. Which is a form of advertising. Or a television spot ("Now on Maple Blvd!"). Or maybe they build a huge sign saying "GROCERY-MART" for people to see.
Now here is a clear example of something people are generally already inclined to buy, and a complete example of a lack of subterfuge.
Now the question is, "Is this the exception?" Of course not. MOST things that are advertised -- financial services, beer, television programs -- are things that people are inclined to want.
What's more, as far as subterfuge goes, there are very strict laws about what claims an advertisement can make. If I say that my company's been in business since 1859, and I've only been in business since 1989, I'm going to find myself hit with a huge fine AND a public-relations disaster. That's why ads are more likely to show people having a good time with a product, rather than actually making claims about a product.
"But I didn't ask some bag of advertising execs to figure out how to "beat" me or "trick" me into buying their crap. I feel no guilt in peering straight through the scams, swindles, and other assorted sales pitches, and helping others to do so."
Most advertised products and services ARE desired by people, and most advertisements only exist so that people will know how to get what they already want. Just because YOU didn't want those things doesn't mean the majority of the people didn't want them. More to the point, I think you do -- or at some point, you will -- want most of the things that are advertised and one time or another.
I understand. A TV show could make claims about a product without a disclaimer. Most TV shows are fiction. Even so-called "Reality" shows are elaborately-staged fiction. Come to think of it, even the News is largely opinion and claims of dubious origin. So ultimately I don't believe what I'm watching anyway; since I don't believe what I'm watching, a product placement could backfire, because any claims made about the product I'm going to automatically assume are fictitious, plot elements, or otherwise dubious. Which means that what I see I am not going to treat in the same way I'll treat something in an infomercial or advertisement. And because of this, I don't think there's a need for a disclaimer. People know they're seeing bullshit anyway.
I hear ya. If you live in an information society, you're going to be pelted with ads. On the other hand those advertisements are part of what make an information society possible. At its most basic level, advertising is just another form of communication -- you need and want things, and other people/companies make things, and you somehow need to find out what's available for you, and they need to let you know that they have stuff. If they don't advertise, you don't know they exist.
Naw, as you know American football's rules came about long before radio and TV. If anything, the 25-second between-play clock is a deterrent to advertising, since most ads are limited to 30 seconds.
Maybe it's because the TV programs are fiction.
I have to agree with the original post. I don't see the big deal here. If you don't want to see ads, turn off the tube. If you don't want to see product placements in your TV series, watch different TV series. Or don't watch the TV at all.
Consider this: I pretty much just watch football on TV, which is nothing but product placements -- not just for the various equipment manufacturers and beer companies, but also for the teams themselves. There are no disclaimers necessary, because if the equipment is bad, I'll get a good chance to see it for myself.
That was pretty deep. I can't remember a time I got that much depth out of a Slashdot post.
"Bukkake."
At least, that was the image that came to MY mind.
My mind is dirty...
That just means that SCO is now at a position where they have to not only give up on their current claims, but potentially give a few more things up to make this whole thing go away. They've gone from possibly making money on a settlement to now being lucky if they don't end up having to spend money to save their company. They are in deep, deep doo-doo.
The beauty of this is that IBM did it on a Friday. These thoughts -- and today's drop -- are going to have time to marinate before anyone reads SCO's response on Monday morning.
Man, I'm glad IBM's on our side. But then, most well-run corporations are.
Travolta's character in "A Civil Action," Jan Schlichtmann, makes a good observation: If a case ever makes it to court, both sides have lost.
IBM is playing this beautifully from many points of view: They are moving slowly and quietly.
This gives them the appearance of deliberate and thoughtful action. Because there's a good month's worth of rumbling about possible attacks IBM can make before IBM makes them, their claims are never surprising. But because the delay between when the ideas seem to be part of the meme and when IBM makes their action is so long, and because IBM says so very precious little about the suit publicly, the action feels very sudden. And last, the slow movement causes one to think that their case has been very thoroughly researched long before the axe ever falls.
As a result, these counterclaims are absolutely devastating to SCO. Not just because of what they state, but mostly because of how they are stated.
This action serves two goals. One, when it comes to settlement offers, each counterclaim is weakening SCO's ability to make demands with settlement offers. I think that with the first counterclaim, SCO was able to demand much less than at first. I think that with this one, SCO may want to try to make the whole thing go away.
Two -- if SCO is stubborn enough to allow this to go to court, IBM is covering its bases.
IBM has really impressed me lately with their management, which I can summarize with one principle I learned from Dale Carnegie: "Cooperate with the inevitable." They saw Linux's promise and also saw that in the long term, no one would be able to compete with Free, so they began working on ways to make money with that inevitability. And in the short run their handling of SCO has been similar: They have covered all of their bases with this lawsuit.
Contrast this with the RIAA member corporations. Pay specific attention to the corporations' current profitability, stock movement (relative to S&P 500 or any major index), and future prospects. Double-space your answer and turn in on Monday. This assignment represents 33 1/3% of your grade for this class.
You have a good point here, because the point was ringing in my ears as I read the report.
On the one hand, it is true that the combination of Windows' lack of interoperability, closed-source nature, tight integration, and near-monopoly status make it uniquely qualified to spread damaging viruses quickly, better than other operating systems. If you don't take great consideration to how you set up your IT infrastructure, you're going to get burned.
As you say, the problem is ultimately one of policy, not technology. If you know what you're dealing with, if you know what you're doing, you can establish and enforce policies in your IT infrastructure that prevent the spread of viruses. Every time a virus strikes, we hear about it from the ones that don't. We aren't hearing about the places that haven't had problems. They are out there!
Is Windows adoption by itself a danger to national security? Hardly. Bad IT policy is, regardless of OS. So when a group like this overstates their case, it really damages the valid point that Windows IS more difficult than other OSes, that certain things about Windows DO make it dangerous to adopt by a government.
I'd rather hear them talking in more moderate and modest terms. Making overblown claims that aren't easily and obviously supported by the evidence is going to make people think that the pro-OSS/anti-Windows folks are a bunch of frickin' loonies when the slightest bit of investigation can find flaws in the claims.
You're correct that it's a "straw man" to assume that used car sales would be eliminated. You're also correct that you didn't suggest that.
In fact, you didn't say anything about how your mandate for higher-efficiency automobiles would work at all. You made a very extraordinary claim, that such a mandate would be low-cost. All such regulations in the past have had a very high cost; new gasoline formulations in Cali. have led to much higher gas prices (which is effectively a regressive tax), mandates on emissions systems have led to a higher cost for automobiles, mandates on electric cars have high R&D costs that are also passed along to consumers. So perhaps you could take the time to provide details on how to mandate more-efficient driving with a low cost?
Now as for the case of your public education program suggestion, my example -- which is the median case by the way, and thus the people we are most concerned about -- is not a straw man argument: All public education programs cost incredible amounts of money, and effects vary. You can convince people that using cocaine is wrong, but if you try to convince people to wait until they're married to have sex you're going to have much less success. Walking and biking to work isn't realistic for most people.
First, do no harm. Part of this means thinking through the effects of policy changes on the average person. Everyone wants cleaner air and water regardless of the global warming issue, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't inconvenience them dramatically. If you give them recycling bins that they can use conveniently, they will use them. If you don't, they won't.
I myself walk to work when I can. I can, because I make a lot more than the average American and have no kids, and thus I can live in an apartment right next to my job -- and shopping is conveniently located right on my way home. But that's exceptional, especially in California. Most people have to drive from the desert towards the coast, or from less-urban areas in the North to downtown in the South to get to their jobs. Most people have more financial worries than I.
These are the people -- real people, not straw -- that solutions must apply to.
Let's play pretend.
You're a single mom with three kids. You work downtown, because that's the job you could find in this economy. But you live an hour away, because you can't afford a place big enough for three kids in the center of the city. Now because of the structure of the suburbs and the distance, public transportation is impractical. You HAVE to drive.
You have a choice in cars. You can buy the latest clean whiz-bang R&D-supported car, the Honda Insight, for the low, low price of $20k. (Honda has to recoup their R&D money somehow.) Or you can buy a friend's used '94 Buick for $4000. Remember -- you have three hungry mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay.
Now suddenly the government is telling you all about the benefits of biking and walking to work. That you have to get rid of your Buick and buy the Insight. How the heck are you going to fit your whole household into the car to drive them to school?
If you don't pay for it now, you'll have to pay for it later through increased taxes. And of course, all the people you know, your family, your friends -- they're all in the same boat you are. Because they too moved to the suburbs because they couldn't afford housing downtown. They also have to commute a long way to get to work. They also have kids to feed.
So you were saying something about "doing everything that causes no harm?"
Actually, you were right to mod it down, because the guy made the claim that melting ice causes water to expand.
Which it doesn't, because ice, unlike all other solids, takes up -greater- volume than water (given the same mass).
I can't quite recall why, but I believe it's related to the shape/polarity of the H2O molecule.
"Yes. We should all sit on our asses and do nothing until we are 100% sure."
You're being sarcastic, but that's actually good advice: If you do something NOW and it ends up being the wrong thing, that means just that much less backtracking you'll have to do when you ARE 100% sure.
Shhh!!! THEY don't know that!