Nintendo's playing the only card they have left: nostalgia. MS and Sony can't offer two decades worth of games. I've used emulators before, and nothing compares to being in front of a TV on a couch with friends.
I'm sure the pricing structure (if there is one--remember that Nintendo has nothing to lose by making it free; they've already made money off their old games) will be simple. My biggest question is whether games developed by 3rd parties will be available. Don't get me wrong, I've been itching to play some Mario Kart 64 on a decent controller for awhile now, but I'd LOVE to play a full season of Baseball Stars without worrying about the cart's battery crapping out 70 games in.
Sort of--you don't need a plugin for it to work, it just opens it in the main Safari window. You can right/option-click on the PDF to open it in Preview.
Re:Don't click on the blue E!
on
Firefox Hacks
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't. Aside from putting a Firefox icon on the desktop of all my family and friends' computers that I service, I also use the IE icon and point it to Firefox just in case they happen to click on it out of habit.
It's not a marketing ploy--Nintendo is still going to release GameBoy systems in the future. They're going to have three areas: console, DS, and GameBoy.
Truthfully, no. But I saw Beck play this song he'd written using a GameBoy Color at Coachella '04, and it was pretty cool. Nothing too extravagant, but (like most of the tweaks and hacks on Slashdot) he did it mostly because he could.
Right, but it does nothing to help the artist. Even for musicians and bands who're on RIAA-represented labels (who receive next to nothing for album sales), new album purchases serve as an important popularity gauge.
The *only* entity you're helping when you purchase used music is the store you're buying from. Might as well just download the music for what it's worth.
Being a resident of Phoenix proper, and having (war)driven quite a bit in Scottsdale as well as other parts of the east valley, I can confirm the existence of more open wireless networks than closed. Probably around a 5:1 ratio.
How's this for protecting your data? Close your wireless networks. WEP's better (not by much, but still better) than no WEP at all.
What bothers me more is a bunch of greedy privateers who rob us of the culture we all helped to create. Getting people to pay toll for every piece of art/music/writing for 150 years is insane.
Hold on. How many artists/musicians/writers are as diligent in fighting copyright as consumers are? The majority aren't. They need to make a living. As much as some would like it to be, this isn't a socialist society.
If the copyright expired after 28 years, we would be less likely to to pass things around for free.
That's an incredible easy statement to make now, and I seriously doubt its validity. Very few people who download copyright works are thinking "I'm only doing this because copyright law is screwed up." They're thinking "I'm getting something for nothing."
Who exactly am I harming when I share recordings of Charlie Parker from 1946?
Honestly? No one, with the exception of (possibly) Mr. Parker's offspring. That begs the question, though: Who are you harming when you run a red light in the middle of nowhere?
I'm as opposed to current copyright laws as the next person, but there's a difference between being vocally active and physically so. The lay citizen's perspective seems to be one of "Since it's illegal now, it shouldn't ever be legal". The beauty of our legislative system is that it can adapt to change--socially, culturally, technologically. However, the detriment of blatant disregard for the law simply because you don't agree with it is dangerous because of the resulting mindset: I'm above the law.
As righteous as a bill like this may seem at the first glance, it bothers me that there are those who think that copyright is a God-given law, and not something some fat-walleted corporate assholes came up with fairly recently, around a 100 years ago.
This is precisely why the topic of debate in Congress needs to be the reevaluation of copyright, rather than the assumption that the current legislation are sufficient for our needs.
And don't give me the "starving artist" bullshit. Most musicians make lots more money off concerts than off recordings. And those that do could easily compensate by doing more concerts, and selling t-shirts or what-not. And commodity software is best done OSS-style anyways.
Making broad statements rarely encompass the spectrum of money-making artists and labels in existence, but it's safe to say that there are two separate groups that either lose to or benefit from file-sharing (specifically, music) on the Internet:
1. Major music labels (labels represented by the RIAA) have the most to lose, since most downloaders don't buy the albums they're leeching. Ten years ago they would've bought the album, or one of their friends would've bought the album. Now they simply download it.
2.) Independent music labels actually benefit from file-sharing. Having talked with several associates and friends in the indie music business, as well as smaller record store owners, the consensus is clear: indie music fans are rapid about the bands they listen to. They tend to use file-sharing apps as a research tool, then buy the albums they enjoy. What's more, they also support the artist by attending shows and purchasing paraphernalia.
Now about software. Most software, line-count wise, written in the world, is custom software, written to order. Commodity software companies employ just a small percentage of all programmers. Try to think, of the software developers you know personally, how many would loose, or have to change, their jobs if the copyright law were abolished? I doubt it's more than 1%.
How can you make that argument based the number of lines written? What's more, how is the the job market dependent on the existence of copyright law? Maybe the market in general, but I doubt any actual programming positions hang in the balance because of copyright. If any argument's to be made, it needs to be monetarily founded. This is the primary reason behind copyright--protecting intellectual property.
As intrusive as a bill like this might seem at first glance, it bothers me that there are those who think it's their God-given right to free music or movies simply because they're available to download.
That being said, I feel it's important to note that what needs evaluating isn't the violation of copyright, rather, the purpose and effect of copyright itself.
Although none of them even come close to Starbucks' size, Phoenix has several coffee chains--Coffee Plantation, Coffee Grounds, Market St Coffee are just a few.
Oh...I just thought it meant ANY sound, and I was thinking of the console beep that I've always been able to hear.
On a serious note--I've never had to force something to do it didn't do out of the box, but then again, I've never had to play any AC3 in Linux. Not really sure that that's what the article was implying either. Although I'm sure that some cards might take a little longer to get working than others, for the most part sound is pretty harmless, especially in comparison with other services.
I have never had a problem getting sound working in Linux in the 10+ personal (and friends') machines I've installed it on, including an array of laptops and manufactured computers. Linux might have a weakness, but I doubt it is support for sound.
Maybe an additional way to help support your favorite artists is to steal their music, then donate to them anonymously...
I actually discussed this very subject with a co-worker last week. After a couple of hours, I finally just said that the best thing to do is download their music, and send the artists money directly. After thinking it over, however, I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't necessarily be the best thing to do.
(Most) popular artists are signed to labels, and they use albums sales to gauge an artist's popularity and influence. It pretty much comes down to this: If you download music without paying for it, you are screwing the artist up in some way.
That's my devil's advocate stance. My personal view is: download music, support the artists (i.e. attend concerts, buy articles of clothting, et al) in any way besides buying their CDs. The only time I'll go and buy a CD is when I either love the artist (this is very) seldom or if I can't find any high-quality copies of it on the Internet.
Honestly, I could care less about banner ads or image ads within a given page. What pisses me off to no end are pop-up ads. How much more effective are pop-ups, really?
Sorry to disagree with you, but PDF is not as bad as you make it out to be.
1) have to buy a piece of software that costs hundreds of dollars to be able to produce these documents (what else does that remind me of?)
Ever hear of Ghostscript? ps2pdf? I've been using a ps2pdf printer I set up over Samba for ages with no problem.
For exchanging static information with clients, it's the best thing that I've come across. Images get too unwieldy, and Postscript just isn't as widely supported as PDF.
Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's playing the only card they have left: nostalgia. MS and Sony can't offer two decades worth of games. I've used emulators before, and nothing compares to being in front of a TV on a couch with friends.
I'm sure the pricing structure (if there is one--remember that Nintendo has nothing to lose by making it free; they've already made money off their old games) will be simple. My biggest question is whether games developed by 3rd parties will be available. Don't get me wrong, I've been itching to play some Mario Kart 64 on a decent controller for awhile now, but I'd LOVE to play a full season of Baseball Stars without worrying about the cart's battery crapping out 70 games in.
Sort of--you don't need a plugin for it to work, it just opens it in the main Safari window. You can right/option-click on the PDF to open it in Preview.
I don't. Aside from putting a Firefox icon on the desktop of all my family and friends' computers that I service, I also use the IE icon and point it to Firefox just in case they happen to click on it out of habit.
Second the motion. The AI in Civ3 for Mac is horrendous--it's impossible to conduct any type of diplomacy.
It's not a marketing ploy--Nintendo is still going to release GameBoy systems in the future. They're going to have three areas: console, DS, and GameBoy.
Where's the RSS feed?
Truthfully, no. But I saw Beck play this song he'd written using a GameBoy Color at Coachella '04, and it was pretty cool. Nothing too extravagant, but (like most of the tweaks and hacks on Slashdot) he did it mostly because he could.
Are you sure they're higher quality, even after compression to DivX/XviD?
Right, but it does nothing to help the artist. Even for musicians and bands who're on RIAA-represented labels (who receive next to nothing for album sales), new album purchases serve as an important popularity gauge. The *only* entity you're helping when you purchase used music is the store you're buying from. Might as well just download the music for what it's worth.
For what it's worth, the stair surfing was in LOTR:TT, not ROTK.
..they should just run everything from a RAM disk.
The fastest dupe I've ever seen.
How's this for protecting your data? Close your wireless networks. WEP's better (not by much, but still better) than no WEP at all.
Hold on. How many artists/musicians/writers are as diligent in fighting copyright as consumers are? The majority aren't. They need to make a living. As much as some would like it to be, this isn't a socialist society.
If the copyright expired after 28 years, we would be less likely to to pass things around for free.
That's an incredible easy statement to make now, and I seriously doubt its validity. Very few people who download copyright works are thinking "I'm only doing this because copyright law is screwed up." They're thinking "I'm getting something for nothing."
Who exactly am I harming when I share recordings of Charlie Parker from 1946?
Honestly? No one, with the exception of (possibly) Mr. Parker's offspring. That begs the question, though: Who are you harming when you run a red light in the middle of nowhere?
I'm as opposed to current copyright laws as the next person, but there's a difference between being vocally active and physically so. The lay citizen's perspective seems to be one of "Since it's illegal now, it shouldn't ever be legal". The beauty of our legislative system is that it can adapt to change--socially, culturally, technologically. However, the detriment of blatant disregard for the law simply because you don't agree with it is dangerous because of the resulting mindset: I'm above the law.
This is precisely why the topic of debate in Congress needs to be the reevaluation of copyright, rather than the assumption that the current legislation are sufficient for our needs.
And don't give me the "starving artist" bullshit. Most musicians make lots more money off concerts than off recordings. And those that do could easily compensate by doing more concerts, and selling t-shirts or what-not. And commodity software is best done OSS-style anyways.
Making broad statements rarely encompass the spectrum of money-making artists and labels in existence, but it's safe to say that there are two separate groups that either lose to or benefit from file-sharing (specifically, music) on the Internet:
1. Major music labels (labels represented by the RIAA) have the most to lose, since most downloaders don't buy the albums they're leeching. Ten years ago they would've bought the album, or one of their friends would've bought the album. Now they simply download it.
2.) Independent music labels actually benefit from file-sharing. Having talked with several associates and friends in the indie music business, as well as smaller record store owners, the consensus is clear: indie music fans are rapid about the bands they listen to. They tend to use file-sharing apps as a research tool, then buy the albums they enjoy. What's more, they also support the artist by attending shows and purchasing paraphernalia.
Now about software. Most software, line-count wise, written in the world, is custom software, written to order. Commodity software companies employ just a small percentage of all programmers. Try to think, of the software developers you know personally, how many would loose, or have to change, their jobs if the copyright law were abolished? I doubt it's more than 1%.
How can you make that argument based the number of lines written? What's more, how is the the job market dependent on the existence of copyright law? Maybe the market in general, but I doubt any actual programming positions hang in the balance because of copyright. If any argument's to be made, it needs to be monetarily founded. This is the primary reason behind copyright--protecting intellectual property.
That being said, I feel it's important to note that what needs evaluating isn't the violation of copyright, rather, the purpose and effect of copyright itself.
Although none of them even come close to Starbucks' size, Phoenix has several coffee chains--Coffee Plantation, Coffee Grounds, Market St Coffee are just a few.
First Lollapalooza, then Comdex. What will be next?!
Oh...I just thought it meant ANY sound, and I was thinking of the console beep that I've always been able to hear.
On a serious note--I've never had to force something to do it didn't do out of the box, but then again, I've never had to play any AC3 in Linux. Not really sure that that's what the article was implying either. Although I'm sure that some cards might take a little longer to get working than others, for the most part sound is pretty harmless, especially in comparison with other services.
I have never had a problem getting sound working in Linux in the 10+ personal (and friends') machines I've installed it on, including an array of laptops and manufactured computers. Linux might have a weakness, but I doubt it is support for sound.
They're going through their library and re-encoding nearly everything at 192 VBR, using Lame 3.92.
Maybe an additional way to help support your favorite artists is to steal their music, then donate to them anonymously...
I actually discussed this very subject with a co-worker last week. After a couple of hours, I finally just said that the best thing to do is download their music, and send the artists money directly. After thinking it over, however, I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't necessarily be the best thing to do.
(Most) popular artists are signed to labels, and they use albums sales to gauge an artist's popularity and influence. It pretty much comes down to this: If you download music without paying for it, you are screwing the artist up in some way.
That's my devil's advocate stance. My personal view is: download music, support the artists (i.e. attend concerts, buy articles of clothting, et al) in any way besides buying their CDs. The only time I'll go and buy a CD is when I either love the artist (this is very) seldom or if I can't find any high-quality copies of it on the Internet.
Honestly, I could care less about banner ads or image ads within a given page. What pisses me off to no end are pop-up ads. How much more effective are pop-ups, really?
Sorry to disagree with you, but PDF is not as bad as you make it out to be.
1) have to buy a piece of software that costs hundreds of dollars to be able to produce these documents (what else does that remind me of?)
Ever hear of Ghostscript? ps2pdf? I've been using a ps2pdf printer I set up over Samba for ages with no problem.
For exchanging static information with clients, it's the best thing that I've come across. Images get too unwieldy, and Postscript just isn't as widely supported as PDF.
Hold on, so you're telling me if I owned the game, it broke, I threw it away, and I download a ROM I'm a pirate?
Not to mention the fact that I am a 'make-your-own-ROMs' kinda guy.