I'm not sure what the situation is in America, but the Australian Government seems to be covering its bases in this information page, saying "This decision to participate in negotiations does not bind Australia to join any subsequent treaty" and "Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty."
When the details do come out, and the public starts to scream about it, the Aussie government are likely to back away from it. I'd guess that other involved countries will take a similar stance. I mean, what are we? Iran?
I smell a scheme that will end up causing many gamers to pay more than what they would if they were to buy the game. It would be better if you could 'buy' the game rather than 'rent' it. If you want to try a game, you check out the demo before making a decision. Or am I reading this wrong?
Also, what will their method of dealing with data loss, etc? Just what will the prices be, compared to going down to your local store? I personally like the idea of having a disk, as I can lend it to a friend if they're interested in the game, or trade it in to GameStop, EB Games, etc and recoup some of the money I spent on it, so that lessens the merit of the service for me. And then, how long will it take to download a full game? Speaking from experience in the Xbox Live Marketplace, speeds can be agonizingly slow.
I mean, it sounds like an idea that could have great potential, but I wouldn't be jumping for joy until the details have been finalized and released to the public.
I'm an Australian running on a 20GB Cap, at 256Kbps. It costs 60 bloody dollars.
I'm sorry, Americans, but the net situation is far worse in other countries than what's coming up for you right now. I can't help but find this all slightly amusing.
Anyway, It'll blow over. If one or two companies try to screw you, then their customers will swap over to another, uncapped service. Even if all the big companies swap to capped services, there will be one or two smalled companies that will stay uncapped. And as a result of such generosity, they will get more customers. And then the big guys in the business will say "...Whoops. That was stupid of us." If you don't stand for it, then they'll be forced to swap back to keep their customers.
Every game genre has sucked until there was a brilliant and revolutionary game which paved the way to work around the genre-specific problems, allowing for a flood of games emulating the first success to come out.
Look at the FPS genre on consoles. For years, developers struggled to get the controls correct. Bungie's 'Halo: Combat Evolved' title finally overcame this issue, and nowadays most console FPS games, regardless of which platform they're on, closely mirror the control layout that Bungie set out.
So, what issues does the industry have to overcome before a wave of Sci-Fi MMO's are released? Is it an intuitive 'I know what this is without having to read the manual' setting, a good choice of classes (sci-fi equivalent of healer/fighter/spellcaster), a detailed and fun universe to explore, or something else?
I assume that the books will keep being written until Microsoft and Bungie have sucked as much money out of the franchise as they possibly can. Seeing as Bungie's user-base logged its one billionth match earlier this year, I'd guess that they will keep publishing for some time.
I wonder how long it will take them to go down the alley of what happens after the cryptic ending of halo 3? They'll have to take that alley eventually.
3) They make it obvious that the list needs to be public because that would make it possible to avoid non-relevant censorship. Even if the list is publicly available, it cannot be used to find the blocked stuff because - well - the stuff is blocked.
There's no such thing as effective censorship. A proxy will get around it, and there are countless more challenging ways to get to it if the person is determined.
As this shows, it is inevitable that the list will be leaked. As a result, it will just be used as a convenient index of porn, and any other 'prohibited content'
Better to do away with the list all together.
Which is really kind of scary when you consider some of the people jumping up and down and going to extremes.
On top of that, if they were to create a protocol to act only after receiving X amount of complaints, if someone really wanted a site down they would just create a bunch of hotmail accounts, and end off emails from a bunch of different public hotspots to spread out the i.p. address.
Let's have a look at Anonymous as well. We all know about the habbo hotel raids. If the filter were to come into effect, by claiming that predators tried to lure children on Habbo Hotel, Anonymous could cut out a large chunk of their user base with a few well worded emails. Any site that is targeted by the group could be hit.
I seriously fear for the future of the internet when the government could hand Anonymous a weapon that could kill communities and cripple websites.
And that's just it. Anyone who doesn't take measures to protect their identity online is an idiot.
It amazes me the amount of information that some people I know blindly post on Myspace and Facebook, naively thinking that there aren't people who want to track them down online.
This is just one example of why we should stay anonymous.
"...suspected serious offences punishable by at least seven years jail â€" which includes computer crime offences."
So, they want to catch computer criminals by using the same tricks that they use? Do the government seriously think that hackers are going to have an insecure network? The closest they'll get to catching hackers is catching a whole bunch of script kiddies, who could be caught without needing to hack their computers.
And when court-sanctioned hacking becomes common, organized crime groups will employ hackers to secure their networks to counter the threat.
It's only going to be a short-term fix. After that, hackers will become the new guards for organizations ranging from illegal to corporations where they don't want the police snooping around without due cause. Funny how this legislation could generate legitimate income for criminals.
And I'll leave the other members to bring up the ethical and legal issues around it.
Yesterday, Microsoft attacked free software and GNU/Linux users with software patent claims against the TomTom Navigator and its implementation of the FAT file system. But do they have a sword or a wet rag?
With widespread support for GNU/Linux becoming a reality, are these patent claims an attempt to chill adoption? If so, then we need to make sure everyone knows about Bilski. Please read this story and use digg to help raise awareness:
And when the price for pirated music becomes too much, then all that stands in the way of the various companies raising prices is each other, and they will wise up to this.
As the free alternative dies, it will open up the door for I-tunes and the other various online music stores to raise prices as they see fit (this would be an international price fix, so there wouldn't be a national corporate watchdog to stop them), knowing that consumers will have no choice but to pay for music at the increased prices. (Sure, they could go to a CD store, but it's not like they will always have the music you want)
Open Source is simply better quality than the sorry excuse for a technology solution that makes up Microsoft's products.
While linux still isn't accepted in the wider community (I for one have had several of my peers sigh or make nasty comments when they have seen me running Ubuntu on my laptop), have a look at Firefox.
Firefox is an accepted alternative to Internet Explorer. It has all the same features, and because it is open source it has countless plugins and modifications which allows for a great deal of customization by the average-joe computer user.
Now, if you look at the comment John Lilly makes about Firefox's shares hitting 20%, he notes that hitting the milestone is something which "just a few years ago most would have considered impossible." In other words, Firefox's popularity increased exponentially once it became accepted and people wised up to the fact that it beat the crap out of Internet Explorer.
Linux is the same. The general view has changed from "What's Linux?" to "Only strange people with ponytails and T-shirts with penguins use Linux" to "People that know a lot about computers sometimes use Linux".
It is inevitable that that view will change to "Everyone can use Linux" and then the floodgates will open as, like with Firefox, people realize that there is an alternative to Microsoft software.
Why do I get the feeling that this will be taken out of context by extremists like Jack Thompson, to continue their campaign to destroy all video games intended for people over the age of 8?
Yes, it is logical that we are affected by the same things in video games that we are in advertising, but it isn't as if it can completely turn around your behavior and morals. I mean, playing GTA, Doom, or Halo isn't going to cause you to go out, buy a gun and go on a murderous rampage. There are other things which are responsible, and the games that the majority of reasonable people play make a convenient scapegoat. And this research may just put a sign over games developer's heads saying "BLAME ME!!!"
Like what if in a Pepsi/Coke video game, Coke gives you Health and Pepsi hurts you... would these people start preferring Coke over Pepsi? Or maybe there would be some reverse psychology where since people -can't- have Pepsi in the game world, they will intrinsically want it more in the real world.
It's funny you mention the Coke/Pepsi thing, as it is a prime example of classic conditioning and psychology in marketing. We associate Coke with 'fun, popular, better tasting' because of the advertisements: We see funny, happy or popular, and then the Coke logo. Over time, we associate that logo with funny, happy and popular. And thus, when we drink it, we get a good feeling because of that association.
Don't believe me? Buy a bottle of Coke, drink it, and then refill it with generic cola. If you want to expand on it, fill the generic bottle with Coke. See what your friends think.
Seeing as Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer industry (albeit one which is slowly losing power thanks to apple), They don't have to worry about keeping their users happy. They have so many that they can afford to lose some to Macs or Linux distributions.
The mac OS is designed to run on a Mac PC, which means that the hardware is restricted and can only be bought from certified Apple resellers. You can't custom build a Mac out of parts from your local PC store either. And they cost more than a basic, 512MB RAM, windows XP computer.
And just the word Linux will scare many a Windows user. Words like 'compile' and phrases like 'sudo apt-get update' are likely to confuse and cause people to get angry.
So with no competitors who stand a chance of putting them out of business in the foreseeable future, they can do as they please and don't have to worry about properly servicing or listening to their end users.
I agree. And on top of that, the "think of the children" campaign is a free kick for any political party. It makes the government look good to those without any knowledge of computers or the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what the situation is in America, but the Australian Government seems to be covering its bases in this information page, saying "This decision to participate in negotiations does not bind Australia to join any subsequent treaty" and "Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty."
When the details do come out, and the public starts to scream about it, the Aussie government are likely to back away from it. I'd guess that other involved countries will take a similar stance. I mean, what are we? Iran?
Doesn't M$ do this with Xbox Live?
It's so funny to watch a government make a huge mistake, and then try to back down from the decision without saying "sorry guys, we screwed up"
I smell a scheme that will end up causing many gamers to pay more than what they would if they were to buy the game. It would be better if you could 'buy' the game rather than 'rent' it. If you want to try a game, you check out the demo before making a decision. Or am I reading this wrong?
Also, what will their method of dealing with data loss, etc? Just what will the prices be, compared to going down to your local store? I personally like the idea of having a disk, as I can lend it to a friend if they're interested in the game, or trade it in to GameStop, EB Games, etc and recoup some of the money I spent on it, so that lessens the merit of the service for me.
And then, how long will it take to download a full game? Speaking from experience in the Xbox Live Marketplace, speeds can be agonizingly slow.
I mean, it sounds like an idea that could have great potential, but I wouldn't be jumping for joy until the details have been finalized and released to the public.
I just wet my pants with laughter...
I'm an Australian running on a 20GB Cap, at 256Kbps. It costs 60 bloody dollars.
I'm sorry, Americans, but the net situation is far worse in other countries than what's coming up for you right now. I can't help but find this all slightly amusing.
Anyway, It'll blow over. If one or two companies try to screw you, then their customers will swap over to another, uncapped service.
Even if all the big companies swap to capped services, there will be one or two smalled companies that will stay uncapped. And as a result of such generosity, they will get more customers. And then the big guys in the business will say "...Whoops. That was stupid of us."
If you don't stand for it, then they'll be forced to swap back to keep their customers.
I wonder if they haggle?
Every game genre has sucked until there was a brilliant and revolutionary game which paved the way to work around the genre-specific problems, allowing for a flood of games emulating the first success to come out.
Look at the FPS genre on consoles. For years, developers struggled to get the controls correct. Bungie's 'Halo: Combat Evolved' title finally overcame this issue, and nowadays most console FPS games, regardless of which platform they're on, closely mirror the control layout that Bungie set out.
So, what issues does the industry have to overcome before a wave of Sci-Fi MMO's are released? Is it an intuitive 'I know what this is without having to read the manual' setting, a good choice of classes (sci-fi equivalent of healer/fighter/spellcaster), a detailed and fun universe to explore, or something else?
I assume that the books will keep being written until Microsoft and Bungie have sucked as much money out of the franchise as they possibly can. Seeing as Bungie's user-base logged its one billionth match earlier this year, I'd guess that they will keep publishing for some time.
I wonder how long it will take them to go down the alley of what happens after the cryptic ending of halo 3? They'll have to take that alley eventually.
All it took was one email.
Which is really kind of scary when you consider some of the people jumping up and down and going to extremes.
On top of that, if they were to create a protocol to act only after receiving X amount of complaints, if someone really wanted a site down they would just create a bunch of hotmail accounts, and end off emails from a bunch of different public hotspots to spread out the i.p. address.
Let's have a look at Anonymous as well. We all know about the habbo hotel raids. If the filter were to come into effect, by claiming that predators tried to lure children on Habbo Hotel, Anonymous could cut out a large chunk of their user base with a few well worded emails. Any site that is targeted by the group could be hit.
I seriously fear for the future of the internet when the government could hand Anonymous a weapon that could kill communities and cripple websites.
And that's just it. Anyone who doesn't take measures to protect their identity online is an idiot.
It amazes me the amount of information that some people I know blindly post on Myspace and Facebook, naively thinking that there aren't people who want to track them down online.
This is just one example of why we should stay anonymous.
"...suspected serious offences punishable by at least seven years jail â€" which includes computer crime offences."
So, they want to catch computer criminals by using the same tricks that they use?
Do the government seriously think that hackers are going to have an insecure network?
The closest they'll get to catching hackers is catching a whole bunch of script kiddies, who could be caught without needing to hack their computers.
And when court-sanctioned hacking becomes common, organized crime groups will employ hackers to secure their networks to counter the threat.
It's only going to be a short-term fix. After that, hackers will become the new guards for organizations ranging from illegal to corporations where they don't want the police snooping around without due cause.
Funny how this legislation could generate legitimate income for criminals.
And I'll leave the other members to bring up the ethical and legal issues around it.
The free software foundation sent out this email to their subscribers on the 28th of February
Looking at Microsoft's FAT patents through Bilski glasses
http://endsoftpatents.org/looking-at-microsoft-s-fat-patents-through-bilski-glasses/
Yesterday, Microsoft attacked free software and GNU/Linux users with
software patent claims against the TomTom Navigator and its
implementation of the FAT file system. But do they have a sword or a wet
rag?
With widespread support for GNU/Linux becoming a reality, are these
patent claims an attempt to chill adoption? If so, then we need to make
sure everyone knows about Bilski. Please read this story and use digg to
help raise awareness:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Looking_at_Microsoft_s_FAT_patents_through_Bilski_glasses_2
Sign-up or ask friends to join our End Software Patents mailing list to
get these alerts:
http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert
Thanks
This would best apply to the rolling rock release
And when the price for pirated music becomes too much, then all that stands in the way of the various companies raising prices is each other, and they will wise up to this.
As the free alternative dies, it will open up the door for I-tunes and the other various online music stores to raise prices as they see fit (this would be an international price fix, so there wouldn't be a national corporate watchdog to stop them), knowing that consumers will have no choice but to pay for music at the increased prices. (Sure, they could go to a CD store, but it's not like they will always have the music you want)
It won't remain $1 a pop for long.
Open Source is simply better quality than the sorry excuse for a technology solution that makes up Microsoft's products.
While linux still isn't accepted in the wider community (I for one have had several of my peers sigh or make nasty comments when they have seen me running Ubuntu on my laptop), have a look at Firefox.
Firefox is an accepted alternative to Internet Explorer. It has all the same features, and because it is open source it has countless plugins and modifications which allows for a great deal of customization by the average-joe computer user.
Now, if you look at the comment John Lilly makes about Firefox's shares hitting 20%, he notes that hitting the milestone is something which "just a few years ago most would have considered impossible."
In other words, Firefox's popularity increased exponentially once it became accepted and people wised up to the fact that it beat the crap out of Internet Explorer.
Linux is the same. The general view has changed from "What's Linux?" to "Only strange people with ponytails and T-shirts with penguins use Linux" to "People that know a lot about computers sometimes use Linux".
It is inevitable that that view will change to "Everyone can use Linux" and then the floodgates will open as, like with Firefox, people realize that there is an alternative to Microsoft software.
Microsoft knows this.
And they are afraid.
Why do I get the feeling that this will be taken out of context by extremists like Jack Thompson, to continue their campaign to destroy all video games intended for people over the age of 8?
Yes, it is logical that we are affected by the same things in video games that we are in advertising, but it isn't as if it can completely turn around your behavior and morals.
I mean, playing GTA, Doom, or Halo isn't going to cause you to go out, buy a gun and go on a murderous rampage. There are other things which are responsible, and the games that the majority of reasonable people play make a convenient scapegoat. And this research may just put a sign over games developer's heads saying "BLAME ME!!!"
Like what if in a Pepsi/Coke video game, Coke gives you Health and Pepsi hurts you... would these people start preferring Coke over Pepsi? Or maybe there would be some reverse psychology where since people -can't- have Pepsi in the game world, they will intrinsically want it more in the real world.
It's funny you mention the Coke/Pepsi thing, as it is a prime example of classic conditioning and psychology in marketing. We associate Coke with 'fun, popular, better tasting' because of the advertisements: We see funny, happy or popular, and then the Coke logo. Over time, we associate that logo with funny, happy and popular. And thus, when we drink it, we get a good feeling because of that association.
A famous Russian psychologist named Palov proved this when he fed Dogs over a period of time, while ringing a bell. After a while, the dogs would salivate at the sound of the bell without any food being present.
The same principal applies with marketing, be it television, or in video games. If we are having a good time in the game, and see the advertisement, we will associate that brand with a good time.
Don't believe me? Buy a bottle of Coke, drink it, and then refill it with generic cola. If you want to expand on it, fill the generic bottle with Coke. See what your friends think.
Too right.
Seeing as Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer industry (albeit one which is slowly losing power thanks to apple), They don't have to worry about keeping their users happy. They have so many that they can afford to lose some to Macs or Linux distributions.
The mac OS is designed to run on a Mac PC, which means that the hardware is restricted and can only be bought from certified Apple resellers. You can't custom build a Mac out of parts from your local PC store either. And they cost more than a basic, 512MB RAM, windows XP computer.
And just the word Linux will scare many a Windows user. Words like 'compile' and phrases like 'sudo apt-get update' are likely to confuse and cause people to get angry.
So with no competitors who stand a chance of putting them out of business in the foreseeable future, they can do as they please and don't have to worry about properly servicing or listening to their end users.
I agree. And on top of that, the "think of the children" campaign is a free kick for any political party. It makes the government look good to those without any knowledge of computers or the internet.