If it helps, think of that trend as the result of computers becoming popular with the Masses. Electronic Arts and the rest already know that they can get "us" to buy games. Hardcore gamers are a given. So like any smart company, they wont spend much effort to keep us attracted to their games. At this point, they want to get Jocks, Women, Artsy types, Beurocrats, Lawyers, and the rest to buy games also. In short, they are going after the AOL demographic.
Most people from that group are just not likely to spend much time playing the sort of games that geeks typically play. However, even they can appreciate a cool looking explosion or light show.
It is easier to sell a pretty looking game because any idiot can look at a picture and say "Ooh, thats pretty.". The same cannot be said for the gameplay.
And the total goatse.cx like reaming they have taken over the last few hundred years, you realize that Western Democracy is not exactly perfect either.
While the concept of any civilian being able to fly is an intriging one, it does pose certain problems.
Most drivers are of the opinion that 95% of other drivers should not be driving. At least that is the way it seems to myself when my friends who do drive choose to vent their spleens on the subject.
Do you really want that Drunken idiot who cut you off flying around? The hazards for office buildings and high rise apartments alone are staggering. I do not like the idea of having some 16 year old DUI parking his Hovercar in my apartment living room.
Actually, the direction of the interaction is not the same. NVidia is not telling a developer ot use only its tech and provide crippleware for other cards. In this instance, a Developer is approaching the Hardware manufacturer.
Also, Square has become more concerned with making Pretty Games then making Good Games (at least since FF7). I am sure that if ATI was the recognized leader in Graphics technology in PC circles, they would have approached ATI instead.
I beleive that the primary reason that the hardware was altered is because the Engineers at Microsoft were able to re-design the system to make it cheaper to manufacture. Sure, the added effect of locking out current Mod techniques is an added bonus. But Microsoft would not make those changes just to add cost to their manufacturing costs.
Think about it. No console maker can get away with increasing the cost of the console to "Lock Out Hackers". The end user is either a hacker himself, or does not care.
The primary purpose is to most likely make the console cheaper, which means either a lower retail price, or more profit for Microsoft.
One thing that many PC gamers tend to not realize is that a Console game will almost always make more money then a PC game. Even a mostly crappy console game sells more copies then some of the best PC games.
If you take that into account, there is no reason not to do a Console game. And at least they are doing this the right way. Unless I am severly mistaken, the console ports of Warcraft 2, Diablo, and Starcraft have all sucked.
What makes this different then putting one of the electrodes on each of its legs, and one on its ass? Rats are smart creatures, and it is conceivable that these things hurt. It could be that they simply trained the rat to respond to pain stimulus?
Aside from the staggering technical difficulties involved in creating a blanket cure for blindness, I honestly think it is the best possible solution.
At some point, the biotechnology required to accomplish that feat will be collectively cheaper then applying ugly kludges in an attempt to adapt everyday things so that they are suitable for day to day use to the visually impaired.
Besides, all things considered, it must really suck ass to be blind, or otherwise disabled. If I were blind, I would want more effort put toward making me see again then toward adapting things so that I could use them.
As it is mentioned in the article, the first (Bats, Golf Clubs, Cell Phones) are uses that pose no real risks to anyone. As they say in the article, if they screw up a golf club, a customer gets a refund. If they screw up an airplane however, someone is dead, and the company will quite probably be held liable.
Being sued for the failure of a critical airplane part is not going to enhance shareholder value.
Then dont test it. The problem isnt that the testing is reporting too many non-bugs. The fact that your finding a large number of bugs means simply that a large number of bugs exist. Less testing does not reduce the number of bugs in a program, it simply reduces the bug count.
I will admit that bug testing often results in many non-bugs being reported. But that does not mean that testing is a bad thing. If anything, testing should be started as early as possible, and be carried out frequently. The earlier that bugs are found, the easier it is to fix them.
Surely there has to be a way to break down these plastics and metals in such a way that they are no longer a threat. Burn them at super hot temperatures, subject them to strong chemicals that can break them down, or whatever.
Of course, the above suggestions are useless, but how much effort has actually been put into figuring this problem out anyway?
While that approach will certantly enable one to easily port from an older piece of hardware to a newer piece, it does not work both ways. Especially if, for example, a game that uses 32 megs of texture memory is ported to a machine / platform that can only provide 8 megs of texture memory.
Compression technologies aside, its not that easy to get 8 megs RAM to emulate 32 megs of RAM.
At least not with respect to the PS2. The architecture of that machine is quite simply nowhere near what a Win32 programmer expects.
Input and Sound are handled on the IPU, which is essentially an embedded PS1.
The machine has an insanely low amount of ram for textures that the only way to actually use many is to either compress the hell out of them or use the insanely high memory bandwitdth to contunually load new textures into memory.
The EE / GS (Emotion Engine and Graphics Synth), and the VU0 and VU1 units handle data much differently then a standard 'Wintel' box.
And all of that is just considering the differences between the PS2 and a PC!
Using a well written library, it may be possible to get something to compile. However, all of the games art content (Model geometry and textures) would have to be re-worked signifigantly. Getting a game to run on multiple consoles is a bit more involved then simply switching compilers.
Further complicating this is that for this to work, you will have to write your game with the proposed game engine in mind. This means that if you want to have a simultaneous release, you will have to stick to the lowest common denominator among the selected machines. For some simpler titles, this will be fine, but no game that wants to push a machine to its limits can really get much use from this sort of technology.
Check the difference between the number of units sold for a high profile console title against a comparable high profile title for the PC. The number of units that a console game will sell is almost always better then what a PC game will sell. I will admit to being wrong if you can name a single PC game that has outperformed a Final Fantasy title.
When you want to play a console game, you insert the game, and turn on the console. When you want to play a PC game, you have to make sure that your machine can run the game. Then you spend about a half hour installing it. Then you can play it, but you will probably want to update your patches / drivers first. Such problems are unheard of with Consoles.
The reason that Microsoft is creating a network for a market where they are not dominant is precisely because they are not dominant there. They are hoping that the kinds of games that they will be able to offer will put them ahead of their competition. And while it is likely that they could create a dominant gaming network platform for the PC, the profits involved will be much greater if they can succeed in the Console market.
I like the idea, because it works on many levels. It is probably the only way that the only way that any money would be consistently collected for artists. It will permit people to use the technology without an artificial restraint on what they can and cannot do. It is applicable to other media that can be easily traded, such as Movies, Literature, and perhaps even Videogames.
But this does have some problems. The one good thing about the capitalisim is that it is a pure meritocracy. People vote with their dollars. That is why despite the horrible things you hear about Walmart, they make money. Or why you always hear horrible things about a politician who is consistently re-elected. Under this system the problem becomes one of fairly distributing the money collected from this sort of fee.
The fairest way to distribute the funds would be to track what people are downloading and from where, and use the data collected to divide up the money. If one file accounts for 3% of all mp3 downloads, then it gets 3% of the collected funds. This sounds good on the surface, but lets see what can go wrong.
First, you are relying on the accuracy of the stats. There is no way to ensure that the stats are not artifically inflated. Second, collecting those stats would rely on a Napster like system of servers. It would be impossible to get useful information from a true peer to peer setup. Third, there are privacy issues in tracking what people are downloading. Almost I do not think that anyone cares for the idea of any company or organization being able to figure out what you are downloading and from where.
Still, once you work past those issues, the idea is still a good one.
"The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed"
I don't disupte that claim, but I do beleive that the writer is basing that presumption off of the likelyhood of a stranglet hitting a human.
Anything that is dense enough to pass through our planet by virtue of its velocity and density is probably capable of killing a human if it hits one directly.
And with that in mind, perhaps there was no thrid gunman on a grassy knoll. Maybe Kennedy was the victim of a stray bit of cosmic matter?
What does this say about NASA, an organization that has been synonymous with advanced technology. What does it mean when they are so intrenched in their current ways that they have to go searching for obsolete technology just to keep functioning?
To me, it says that the US has no real intrest in advancing their space technology. What exists currently is good enough because it functions.
NASA is in such sad shape right now that they are not even innovating in their attempts to solve this problem. On this board, I have read stories of people getting an old Apple to read modern flash cards. I have read about people turning a Commodore 64 into a web server. Rather then come up with a workable and clever hack to fix their problem, they are scrounging for old parts. It may be harder to come up with a workable hack, but at least once it is in place, duplicating it would not be a problem. Sooner or later, those old 8086 chips will run out.
Admittedly, right now, AOL-TW is a huge confused mess. Its ugly, inefficient, and bloated. And no one likes them.
However, that is not to say that there is no chance of things working out. That chance is diminishing, but it is still there. Once the situation with media over internet and copyright gets sorted out, things could work out quite well for them. They could very well succeed yet.
Then again, they could also screw it up. In either situation, it should be very intesting to watch. So lets just wait and see what happens.
Actually, thats not quite correct. To be a great success in the Console market, they could do so without Japan as long as they get a majority of the market in Europe as well as the US.
Japan would be a great help for microsoft, but the culture clash would probably kill them there, as it may already be in the process of doing. Microsoft gravitates towards pleasing the majority, and likes to stay Mainstream. In Japan, there is a greater tolerance for Niche markets. After all, could you picture Microsoft getting behind a game where you are a mosquito in a girl's room, and your trying to bite her without being swatted? Such a game already exists in Japan.
But in Europe, the strategy of sticking to the mainstream will be much more successful. The culture clash will be reduced. All Microsoft has to do to win a good market share in Europe is make sure that the big name titles are released very close to the US release date. If the newest titles arrive on the X-Box 2 months before they arrive on the PS2 or the GameCube, they will win that market. And all that would need to be done to insure that is guarantee that all the "Big" titles are devoloped with the French, German, Spanish, Portugese, Sweedish, and other major languages kept in mind from day one.
The source to the operating system is not what is needed. Besides, with so many Linux Zealots raving about how crappy windows is, I am not sure that it would really be taken advantage of anyway. What should be done is to have the file-formats open sourced. This would allow people to use the Data/Files they created on any system they want and with any application they wish. This much is currently expected with the right to rip MP3's from CD's you own.
As I see it, it is only right that you should pay for an application you use if it is sold as a proprietary application. However, you should not be forced to continue to use that application to manipulate your files if a superior alternative exists.
Neither Microsoft nor Corel nor any other provider of a quality word processor owns the copyright to works I create with their application. So why should they require me to use only their application to manipulate those works.
A friend of mine was / is looking to purchase a Dreamcast, but none of the large retailers carry them any more. Unless you can get one off of E-Bay or a Pawn Shop, you will probably have great difficulty finding any these days.
There are plenty of reasons to encourage this sort of thing, especially when you consider the benefits from it. I am not even talking about the envrionmental benefits either. The real motivator for this should be Self Intrest. Cars are simply too expensive to be worth it.
You pay for the Car, gas, parking, insurance, and maintenence. If your able to take advantage of a decent mass transit system, you will at most need to pay for the access pass. The costs of such passes are always cheaper then the costs of using and maintaining a vehicle.
The money you save as a result of using Mass Transit can be redirected to other, more fun costs. Like Videogames, new computer gear, and other electronic goodies.
Though it may be good for the consumers, and the developers, this will not happen. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony make their money from games that come out on their platform. They have no incentive to support a technology that will aid their competetors.
Also, part of the reason that Java and C# have caught on as well as they have is because the PC is really quite stable in terms of basic functionality. Aiding this is the dominance of Windows. But the products that have really benefited from Java are not games. They are internet applications and productivity applications. Games are very dependent on exploiting the target hardware to the fullest. Also, that hardware is anything but uniform in its functionality. A Game Cube has no real resemblance to an XBox. A PS2 has no relation to any sort of other existing hardwrare. If a game was truly platform independent, it would look like a barely average game on the weakest of all of the platforms.
The only way this would succeed is if either Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft become the ONLY player on the console business. And if that happens, there is then no longer any need for a platform independed game development language for Consoles. END COMMUNICATION
There is at least one possible reason for this. Cable ISP's are competing with DSL based ISP's. It could be that the Government powers that be are beleiving that this competition will keep prices down. Its an intresting thing when you think about it. There arent many other things that come to mind where two radically different technologies are competing to provide essentially the same service.
The only other possibility that comes to mind is power generation (Coal vs Hydro vs Nuclear). And as far as I know, you usually only have one type of power plant providing power to a given area.
Slashdot Mirror
If it helps, think of that trend as the result of computers becoming popular with the Masses. Electronic Arts and the rest already know that they can get "us" to buy games. Hardcore gamers are a given. So like any smart company, they wont spend much effort to keep us attracted to their games. At this point, they want to get Jocks, Women, Artsy types, Beurocrats, Lawyers, and the rest to buy games also. In short, they are going after the AOL demographic.
Most people from that group are just not likely to spend much time playing the sort of games that geeks typically play. However, even they can appreciate a cool looking explosion or light show.
It is easier to sell a pretty looking game because any idiot can look at a picture and say "Ooh, thats pretty.". The same cannot be said for the gameplay.
END COMMUNICATION
And the total goatse.cx like reaming they have taken over the last few hundred years, you realize that Western Democracy is not exactly perfect either.
Still, it is a valid point that you make.
END COMMUNICATION
While the concept of any civilian being able to fly is an intriging one, it does pose certain problems.
Most drivers are of the opinion that 95% of other drivers should not be driving. At least that is the way it seems to myself when my friends who do drive choose to vent their spleens on the subject.
Do you really want that Drunken idiot who cut you off flying around? The hazards for office buildings and high rise apartments alone are staggering. I do not like the idea of having some 16 year old DUI parking his Hovercar in my apartment living room.
END COMMUNICATION
Actually, the direction of the interaction is not the same. NVidia is not telling a developer ot use only its tech and provide crippleware for other cards. In this instance, a Developer is approaching the Hardware manufacturer.
Also, Square has become more concerned with making Pretty Games then making Good Games (at least since FF7). I am sure that if ATI was the recognized leader in Graphics technology in PC circles, they would have approached ATI instead.
END COMMUNICATION
I beleive that the primary reason that the hardware was altered is because the Engineers at Microsoft were able to re-design the system to make it cheaper to manufacture. Sure, the added effect of locking out current Mod techniques is an added bonus. But Microsoft would not make those changes just to add cost to their manufacturing costs.
Think about it. No console maker can get away with increasing the cost of the console to "Lock Out Hackers". The end user is either a hacker himself, or does not care.
The primary purpose is to most likely make the console cheaper, which means either a lower retail price, or more profit for Microsoft.
END COMMUNICATION
One thing that many PC gamers tend to not realize is that a Console game will almost always make more money then a PC game. Even a mostly crappy console game sells more copies then some of the best PC games.
If you take that into account, there is no reason not to do a Console game. And at least they are doing this the right way. Unless I am severly mistaken, the console ports of Warcraft 2, Diablo, and Starcraft have all sucked.
END COMMUNICATION
Perhaps the motive is just to get a bunch of lazy programmers out from in front of their computers and walking around for exercise?
END COMMUNICATION
What makes this different then putting one of the electrodes on each of its legs, and one on its ass? Rats are smart creatures, and it is conceivable that these things hurt. It could be that they simply trained the rat to respond to pain stimulus?
END COMMUNICATION
Aside from the staggering technical difficulties involved in creating a blanket cure for blindness, I honestly think it is the best possible solution.
At some point, the biotechnology required to accomplish that feat will be collectively cheaper then applying ugly kludges in an attempt to adapt everyday things so that they are suitable for day to day use to the visually impaired.
Besides, all things considered, it must really suck ass to be blind, or otherwise disabled. If I were blind, I would want more effort put toward making me see again then toward adapting things so that I could use them.
END COMMUNICATION
As it is mentioned in the article, the first (Bats, Golf Clubs, Cell Phones) are uses that pose no real risks to anyone. As they say in the article, if they screw up a golf club, a customer gets a refund. If they screw up an airplane however, someone is dead, and the company will quite probably be held liable.
Being sued for the failure of a critical airplane part is not going to enhance shareholder value.
END COMMUNICATION
Then dont test it. The problem isnt that the testing is reporting too many non-bugs. The fact that your finding a large number of bugs means simply that a large number of bugs exist. Less testing does not reduce the number of bugs in a program, it simply reduces the bug count.
I will admit that bug testing often results in many non-bugs being reported. But that does not mean that testing is a bad thing. If anything, testing should be started as early as possible, and be carried out frequently. The earlier that bugs are found, the easier it is to fix them.
END COMMUNICATION
Surely there has to be a way to break down these plastics and metals in such a way that they are no longer a threat. Burn them at super hot temperatures, subject them to strong chemicals that can break them down, or whatever.
Of course, the above suggestions are useless, but how much effort has actually been put into figuring this problem out anyway?
END COMMUNICATION
While that approach will certantly enable one to easily port from an older piece of hardware to a newer piece, it does not work both ways. Especially if, for example, a game that uses 32 megs of texture memory is ported to a machine / platform that can only provide 8 megs of texture memory.
Compression technologies aside, its not that easy to get 8 megs RAM to emulate 32 megs of RAM.
END COMMUNICATION
At least not with respect to the PS2. The architecture of that machine is quite simply nowhere near what a Win32 programmer expects.
Input and Sound are handled on the IPU, which is essentially an embedded PS1.
The machine has an insanely low amount of ram for textures that the only way to actually use many is to either compress the hell out of them or use the insanely high memory bandwitdth to contunually load new textures into memory.
The EE / GS (Emotion Engine and Graphics Synth), and the VU0 and VU1 units handle data much differently then a standard 'Wintel' box.
And all of that is just considering the differences between the PS2 and a PC!
Using a well written library, it may be possible to get something to compile. However, all of the games art content (Model geometry and textures) would have to be re-worked signifigantly. Getting a game to run on multiple consoles is a bit more involved then simply switching compilers.
Further complicating this is that for this to work, you will have to write your game with the proposed game engine in mind. This means that if you want to have a simultaneous release, you will have to stick to the lowest common denominator among the selected machines. For some simpler titles, this will be fine, but no game that wants to push a machine to its limits can really get much use from this sort of technology.
END COMMUNICATION
Check the difference between the number of units sold for a high profile console title against a comparable high profile title for the PC. The number of units that a console game will sell is almost always better then what a PC game will sell. I will admit to being wrong if you can name a single PC game that has outperformed a Final Fantasy title.
When you want to play a console game, you insert the game, and turn on the console. When you want to play a PC game, you have to make sure that your machine can run the game. Then you spend about a half hour installing it. Then you can play it, but you will probably want to update your patches / drivers first. Such problems are unheard of with Consoles.
The reason that Microsoft is creating a network for a market where they are not dominant is precisely because they are not dominant there. They are hoping that the kinds of games that they will be able to offer will put them ahead of their competition. And while it is likely that they could create a dominant gaming network platform for the PC, the profits involved will be much greater if they can succeed in the Console market.
END COMMUNICATION
I like the idea, because it works on many levels. It is probably the only way that the only way that any money would be consistently collected for artists. It will permit people to use the technology without an artificial restraint on what they can and cannot do. It is applicable to other media that can be easily traded, such as Movies, Literature, and perhaps even Videogames.
But this does have some problems. The one good thing about the capitalisim is that it is a pure meritocracy. People vote with their dollars. That is why despite the horrible things you hear about Walmart, they make money. Or why you always hear horrible things about a politician who is consistently re-elected. Under this system the problem becomes one of fairly distributing the money collected from this sort of fee.
The fairest way to distribute the funds would be to track what people are downloading and from where, and use the data collected to divide up the money. If one file accounts for 3% of all mp3 downloads, then it gets 3% of the collected funds. This sounds good on the surface, but lets see what can go wrong.
First, you are relying on the accuracy of the stats. There is no way to ensure that the stats are not artifically inflated. Second, collecting those stats would rely on a Napster like system of servers. It would be impossible to get useful information from a true peer to peer setup. Third, there are privacy issues in tracking what people are downloading. Almost I do not think that anyone cares for the idea of any company or organization being able to figure out what you are downloading and from where.
Still, once you work past those issues, the idea is still a good one.
END COMMUNICATION
"The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed"
I don't disupte that claim, but I do beleive that the writer is basing that presumption off of the likelyhood of a stranglet hitting a human.
Anything that is dense enough to pass through our planet by virtue of its velocity and density is probably capable of killing a human if it hits one directly.
And with that in mind, perhaps there was no thrid gunman on a grassy knoll. Maybe Kennedy was the victim of a stray bit of cosmic matter?
END COMMUNICATION
What does this say about NASA, an organization that has been synonymous with advanced technology. What does it mean when they are so intrenched in their current ways that they have to go searching for obsolete technology just to keep functioning?
To me, it says that the US has no real intrest in advancing their space technology. What exists currently is good enough because it functions.
NASA is in such sad shape right now that they are not even innovating in their attempts to solve this problem. On this board, I have read stories of people getting an old Apple to read modern flash cards. I have read about people turning a Commodore 64 into a web server. Rather then come up with a workable and clever hack to fix their problem, they are scrounging for old parts. It may be harder to come up with a workable hack, but at least once it is in place, duplicating it would not be a problem. Sooner or later, those old 8086 chips will run out.
END COMMUNICATION
Admittedly, right now, AOL-TW is a huge confused mess. Its ugly, inefficient, and bloated. And no one likes them.
However, that is not to say that there is no chance of things working out. That chance is diminishing, but it is still there. Once the situation with media over internet and copyright gets sorted out, things could work out quite well for them. They could very well succeed yet.
Then again, they could also screw it up. In either situation, it should be very intesting to watch. So lets just wait and see what happens.
END COMMUNICATION
Actually, thats not quite correct. To be a great success in the Console market, they could do so without Japan as long as they get a majority of the market in Europe as well as the US.
Japan would be a great help for microsoft, but the culture clash would probably kill them there, as it may already be in the process of doing. Microsoft gravitates towards pleasing the majority, and likes to stay Mainstream. In Japan, there is a greater tolerance for Niche markets. After all, could you picture Microsoft getting behind a game where you are a mosquito in a girl's room, and your trying to bite her without being swatted? Such a game already exists in Japan.
But in Europe, the strategy of sticking to the mainstream will be much more successful. The culture clash will be reduced. All Microsoft has to do to win a good market share in Europe is make sure that the big name titles are released very close to the US release date. If the newest titles arrive on the X-Box 2 months before they arrive on the PS2 or the GameCube, they will win that market. And all that would need to be done to insure that is guarantee that all the "Big" titles are devoloped with the French, German, Spanish, Portugese, Sweedish, and other major languages kept in mind from day one.
END COMMUNICATION
The source to the operating system is not what is needed. Besides, with so many Linux Zealots raving about how crappy windows is, I am not sure that it would really be taken advantage of anyway. What should be done is to have the file-formats open sourced. This would allow people to use the Data/Files they created on any system they want and with any application they wish. This much is currently expected with the right to rip MP3's from CD's you own.
As I see it, it is only right that you should pay for an application you use if it is sold as a proprietary application. However, you should not be forced to continue to use that application to manipulate your files if a superior alternative exists.
Neither Microsoft nor Corel nor any other provider of a quality word processor owns the copyright to works I create with their application. So why should they require me to use only their application to manipulate those works.
END COMMUNICATION
A friend of mine was / is looking to purchase a Dreamcast, but none of the large retailers carry them any more. Unless you can get one off of E-Bay or a Pawn Shop, you will probably have great difficulty finding any these days.
END COMMUNICATION
There are plenty of reasons to encourage this sort of thing, especially when you consider the benefits from it. I am not even talking about the envrionmental benefits either. The real motivator for this should be Self Intrest. Cars are simply too expensive to be worth it.
You pay for the Car, gas, parking, insurance, and maintenence. If your able to take advantage of a decent mass transit system, you will at most need to pay for the access pass. The costs of such passes are always cheaper then the costs of using and maintaining a vehicle.
The money you save as a result of using Mass Transit can be redirected to other, more fun costs. Like Videogames, new computer gear, and other electronic goodies.
END COMMUNICATION
Though it may be good for the consumers, and the developers, this will not happen. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony make their money from games that come out on their platform. They have no incentive to support a technology that will aid their competetors.
Also, part of the reason that Java and C# have caught on as well as they have is because the PC is really quite stable in terms of basic functionality. Aiding this is the dominance of Windows. But the products that have really benefited from Java are not games. They are internet applications and productivity applications. Games are very dependent on exploiting the target hardware to the fullest. Also, that hardware is anything but uniform in its functionality. A Game Cube has no real resemblance to an XBox. A PS2 has no relation to any sort of other existing hardwrare. If a game was truly platform independent, it would look like a barely average game on the weakest of all of the platforms.
The only way this would succeed is if either Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft become the ONLY player on the console business. And if that happens, there is then no longer any need for a platform independed game development language for Consoles.
END COMMUNICATION
There is at least one possible reason for this. Cable ISP's are competing with DSL based ISP's. It could be that the Government powers that be are beleiving that this competition will keep prices down. Its an intresting thing when you think about it. There arent many other things that come to mind where two radically different technologies are competing to provide essentially the same service.
The only other possibility that comes to mind is power generation (Coal vs Hydro vs Nuclear). And as far as I know, you usually only have one type of power plant providing power to a given area.
END COMMUNICATION