Well, I wouldn't advocate _stealing_ intellectual property... But I have a "friend" who is into computers and he hasn't paid for a copy of windows in years... And suspicously is running Win2K. Hmmm.
Sega would be doing fine with their Dreamcast sales... if Japanese sales were anywhere near as good as their American sales. Their press release states the reason for their fiscal problems as being poor Japanese sales. The DC has been a success in the US, but in Japan it has been a horrible, horrible failure... Something which, I'm sure, must annoy the people who work for SoA.
Now, without having read any of the press releases, so I may be talking out of my ass here, but if Sega is shifting it's focus to software, who's to say it couldn't begin to port current games, and even develop new games for the Indrema system? Any thoughts?
Sega will not bother to develop for Indrema, neither will any other top level developer... at least not until Indrema's install base moves past the 1,000,000 mark (which, let's face it, is unlikely). Many of the top developers consider Sega's market share too small to develop for and they have upwards of 5 million Dreamcasts sold.
If Indrema is going to be successful, the impetus and content will come from the PC games sector and mostly from smaller, hungrier companies.
The FAA and similar agencies around the world are just going to love this. It's bad enough that we've got people building rockets in their back yards. This reminds me of the expedition where a bunch of people died on Everest because they went up with no experience. It was just anyone who had a couple hundred thousand could join up for the thrill.
It's a space capsule, not a rocket. All it's good for is sitting behind a velvet rope, as a display piece. Or a treehouse.
Frankly, I could care less if Diamond takes it in the shorts for deploying a flawed product. That's just capitalism in action.
But if they are forced, either by law or by lawsuit, to add SDMI to their products, thereby making them flawed, then it's not their products that are the problem.
Here's an ethical question for you: Is it ok to help big businesses take away our freedoms so they can increase their profits?
Big business will implement the SDMI scheme, unless they realize that it can't work. It can't work. Any copy protection scheme can and will be overcome, given time. Personally, I think it much better to prove that here and now, so that the Recording Industry will be forced to confront the reality of the situation (instead of biding time with SDMI pipe dreams). File sharing is a hot button topic right now, we need to get laws on the books that support it, not laws that require SDMI-type protection schemes.
How will a circumventable system, "annoy the heck out of people"? What problems will it cause if someone who can defeat the SDMI watermark exercises his rights for fair use and copies his digital music to a non-approved player. HOw does that at all interfere with someone who uses SDMI watermarked music in SDMI approved players? The only people I see that scenario annoying are the members of the RIAA.
I believe he was saying: wouldn't it be better if, instead of "breaking the rules" by circumventing SDMI (and going through some added inconveinance, such as having to run some sort of W4R3Z de-SDMI program on all your sound files), the laws stated that it was okay for you to rip your cds to digital files? And then trade them? Proving that there is no way to prevent file trading well help the RIAA and the government realize that they will have to find another way to deal with the issue than banning it and applying a technological solution.
If SDMI isn't going to work the best thing for it is to let it die.
Exactly. And if it is proven to be unworkable, it will die.
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it. It truly was a remarkable piece of software. It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
I remeber reading about this, too, and thinking it was a good idea. Last I heard though, they were having some serious problems making it work correctly.
Fully half of the current budget is used for entitlement programs: farm subsidies, welfare, social security, medicare, etc.
I would _not_ consider farm subsidies a social program, personally... But if you do, then yes, you are probably right about the numbers. Farm subsidies are massive, much more massive than most people think. According to NPR, last year 50% of all farm income was from subsidies. That's a problem.
And second: SS was -never- meant to take the place of a person's own ability to pay their way in retirement.
Did I say it was? Or that it should? Personally, I wouldn't mind it if we eliminated social security entirely (I have a very nice IRA, among other investments, so I don't plan on needing it) except for the fact that then we'd have to do something about all the people who didn't save for retirement.
America is becoming more and more dependent on the top 10% to cover government expenditures, even though the top 10% consume the fewest government social services.
Isn't the majority of the budget dedicated to non-social services, though? I know it was in the 80s/early 90s... It's possible that eight years of Clinton/Gore may have changed that, but I haven't seen any recent figures.
Why? The top 10% probably consume about 1% of government expenditures for social programs. The consumers of those programs should be supporting them.
Why? Those programs are "social insurance". I'm happy to give up part of my earnings if it means that the bottom 10% get their monthly check and health care so they don't turn to a life of crime... Not to mention, I like the idea that, if something catastrophic happens to me (I become a parapalegic, etc.) I will have some sort of aid to fall back on.
Also, I believe that a larger percentage of taxes goes to non-social programs... Things like defense, the FDA, FCC, law enforcement, prisons, the space program, etc... These are programs we all take advantage of.
But what about sitautions where a company figures out how something works, then makes their own version that is different, but accomplishes the same task? Isn't that what happened with the Cotton Gin? And the automobile? I agree that they shouldn't be able to just copy someone's circuits, but I certainly hope that the hardware field doesn't go as crazy over IP as the software side has (Things like Amazon's 1-click shopping come to mind).
Well, that hospitalization would be because the person couldn't handle what s/he took mentally, not that it was physically life threatening or something.
I have to admit to not having extensive experience with drugs, but as far as I can tell, smoking pot makes you:
a: sleepy b: hungry
c: think things are funny when they are not.
I don't see how anyone would not be able to "handle what s/he took mentally". LSD maybe, but not pot. However, I can see a rise in late night Cheetos and Beef Jerky overdose 911 calls.
The amusing thing about this fellow's post is that he is basically quoting statements made on today's Rush Limbaugh show.
Now, I'm not saying that his facts are wrong... I don't know if they are. But neither does this guy. He just knows that Rush said it on his show today. I listen to Rush most days while I'm at work (I don't see eye to eye with Limbaugh, but his show is very entertaining), and today was the first day that Gore's homosexual comments came up...
Generally when they do this, the Windows Driver info is stored on a seperate partition, or someplace in the windows directory... or something like that. I bought an cheap computer for my parents and it came with one of those "System Reinstall" discs, not a Windows disk. However, when I attempted to install hardware, it pulled a driver list from somewhere on the HD. I didn't bother to check if it was a partition or what. It reminds me of one of my friends who had two CD-rom drives on his machine... One he just kept his 95 cd in, so he wouldn't have to dig for it when he changed his network settings or installed hardware.
But you have, I'm sure, very computer-literate people installing these systems in your offices. I'm sure if I installed Linux on my parent's computer, they could surf and so forth just fine.
However, I'm equally sure that when they come home from CompUSA with a spanking new scanner/printer/cd-rw, they will not be able to install it without extensive help (and maybe not at all). Also, I know that they wouldn't be able to compile software. Linux is great in an environment where you have techs on hand to work with it, set it up just right, etc. But for an average user? No way. My mother could not install Linux on a machine. I think she could set up Windows, however. With a little help from a "For Dummies" book, she definitely could.
Another thing... My parents use AOL. They barely understand it. Actually, they don't. I get questions all the time about the various functions of AOL (of which I know little about). My solution is to turn on AOL, fumble around until I figure out how to do what they want. I show them and they express suprise and awe at the fact that I figured it out. I stress that all I did, basically, was press every button until I got the one that did what they wanted and they could have done the same, but they still call on me to figure out this stuff. They are intimidated by AOL and don't want to mess with it. There is no way they could deal with drive partitions, TCP/IP settings, etc. Would never happen, will never happen, could never happen.
They are probably running scared, just trying to figure out a way to compete against something that is free, stable, easy, and more efficient.
Running scared? Please. I'm sorry, but no matter how simple any Linux installation is, it will have very little effect on MS's market share, especially among the home users (who make up most of the market). These are people who:
a) Only buy big name brand computers anyway, so they already have Windows (and a library of Windows software).
b) Would have trouble installing WinZip, much less Windows, so you can forget them even considering Linux. No matter how simple you make it, it's always going to be more complex than Windows.
c) Need Office, (or think they do) which isn't likely to be available for Linux any time soon.
d) Connect to the net via America Online, which I doubt is available for Linux.
e) Want all their old software to work on it and want to be able to get software/files from their friends/family/work... who all have Windows.
MS is not going to feel a signifigant bite from Linux in the home user market, probably ever, definitely not in the next five to ten years. As far as the geek market goes, they've already lost that and if they think they can get it back, they are fooling themselves. But the geek market is much, much smaller and is also probably less lucrative anyway (I know I haven't bought a copy of Windows since 3.11, and I usually specify that I get my machines without it installed- the only MS products I can remeber buying in the last few years are Age of Empires and my Intellimouse Explorer).
In fact consoles are just horrible for most multiple player games. I tried to play a few, but got sick of looking at my window which was a 1/4 of the screen. Even on a 27" TV this is small and the low resolution does not help this any.
Yeah, but could you play Tony Hawk or Mario Kart with friends who were at your house on your computer? Which probably has a smaller screen than your TV? And which is probably no where near your couch?
The best multiplayer experience I have in my own home is console multiplayer. I consider it way more fun to sit on my couch and play Mario Kart 64 with a few friends, yelling at them when they shoot me, cackling madly and talking trash when I win, then playing with anonymous internet opponents. (LAN parties or LAN gaming places are a lot of fun, but I don't have the room or time for that sort of thing at home.) I play multiplayer FPS maybe a few times a month now, whereas I used to play every night. Not enough time anymore. However, I do play Tony Hawk against my friends 3-4 times a week. I don't think the PC will replace console gaming or vice versa. They are two different animals, that do different things well.
Now that we've got sub $1000 PCs, I don't see the point in spending so much money for an obviously limited console.
Have you ever tried playing a fighting game with a few friends on your computer? Or how about a four-player racing game? Or Madden?
Certain games (fighting, football, etc.) are just plain more fun on a console than on your computer. The same thing is true for other game genres. I can't imagine playing Starcraft on a Playstation... Or, for that matter, Quake.
Plus, the "put the disc in, turn it on, play" aspect of consoles is nice, when just wanna lay back on the couch and play for a few minutes.
If you ever get bored, download an SNES emulator and some ROMS and have some fun... you will discover that it was the best console ever.
I don't think it compare to the original NES. Sure, the SNES is better, but it's an evolutionary leap better than the NES. The first time I saw a NES game (Zelda?), I was floored. I just couldn't believe it, and I knew I had to have one. Man, I whined for months about that to my parents, mowed what seemed like a million lawns, harassed neighbours to let me wash their cars- I didn't care, I had to have it.
I'd have used a front-loading CD-cartridge design, myself. If they're intending for the user to truck it around wherever, that flip-top is a damn bad idea.
Most portable cd players have flip-top lids and they seem to do alright. As long as it's made out of rugged plastic, I doubt it will be a big problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I wouldn't advocate _stealing_ intellectual property... But I have a "friend" who is into computers and he hasn't paid for a copy of windows in years... And suspicously is running Win2K. Hmmm.
Sega would be doing fine with their Dreamcast sales... if Japanese sales were anywhere near as good as their American sales. Their press release states the reason for their fiscal problems as being poor Japanese sales. The DC has been a success in the US, but in Japan it has been a horrible, horrible failure... Something which, I'm sure, must annoy the people who work for SoA.
Josh Sisk
Now, without having read any of the press releases, so I may be talking out of my ass here, but if Sega is shifting it's focus to software, who's to say it couldn't begin to port current games, and even develop new games for the Indrema system? Any thoughts?
Sega will not bother to develop for Indrema, neither will any other top level developer... at least not until Indrema's install base moves past the 1,000,000 mark (which, let's face it, is unlikely). Many of the top developers consider Sega's market share too small to develop for and they have upwards of 5 million Dreamcasts sold.
If Indrema is going to be successful, the impetus and content will come from the PC games sector and mostly from smaller, hungrier companies.
Josh Sisk
The FAA and similar agencies around the world are just going to love this. It's bad enough that we've got people building rockets in their back yards. This reminds me of the expedition where a bunch of people died on Everest because they went up with no experience. It was just anyone who had a couple hundred thousand could join up for the thrill.
It's a space capsule, not a rocket. All it's good for is sitting behind a velvet rope, as a display piece. Or a treehouse.
Josh Sisk
Frankly, I could care less if Diamond takes it in the shorts for deploying a flawed product. That's just capitalism in action.
But if they are forced, either by law or by lawsuit, to add SDMI to their products, thereby making them flawed, then it's not their products that are the problem.
Here's an ethical question for you: Is it ok to help big businesses take away our freedoms so they can increase their profits?
Big business will implement the SDMI scheme, unless they realize that it can't work. It can't work. Any copy protection scheme can and will be overcome, given time. Personally, I think it much better to prove that here and now, so that the Recording Industry will be forced to confront the reality of the situation (instead of biding time with SDMI pipe dreams). File sharing is a hot button topic right now, we need to get laws on the books that support it, not laws that require SDMI-type protection schemes.
How will a circumventable system, "annoy the heck out of people"? What problems will it cause if someone who can defeat the SDMI watermark exercises his rights for fair use and copies his digital music to a non-approved player. HOw does that at all interfere with someone who uses SDMI watermarked music in SDMI approved players? The only people I see that scenario annoying are the members of the RIAA.
I believe he was saying: wouldn't it be better if, instead of "breaking the rules" by circumventing SDMI (and going through some added inconveinance, such as having to run some sort of W4R3Z de-SDMI program on all your sound files), the laws stated that it was okay for you to rip your cds to digital files? And then trade them? Proving that there is no way to prevent file trading well help the RIAA and the government realize that they will have to find another way to deal with the issue than banning it and applying a technological solution.
If SDMI isn't going to work the best thing for it is to let it die.
Exactly. And if it is proven to be unworkable, it will die.
Josh Sisk
I remember seeing this piece of software that could actually block images based on the amount of skin tones in it. It truly was a remarkable piece of software. It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.
I remeber reading about this, too, and thinking it was a good idea. Last I heard though, they were having some serious problems making it work correctly.
Josh Sisk
Fully half of the current budget is used for entitlement programs: farm subsidies, welfare, social security, medicare, etc.
I would _not_ consider farm subsidies a social program, personally... But if you do, then yes, you are probably right about the numbers. Farm subsidies are massive, much more massive than most people think. According to NPR, last year 50% of all farm income was from subsidies. That's a problem.
And second: SS was -never- meant to take the place of a person's own ability to pay their way in retirement.
Did I say it was? Or that it should? Personally, I wouldn't mind it if we eliminated social security entirely (I have a very nice IRA, among other investments, so I don't plan on needing it) except for the fact that then we'd have to do something about all the people who didn't save for retirement.
Josh Sisk
America is becoming more and more dependent on the top 10% to cover government expenditures, even though the top 10% consume the fewest government social services.
Isn't the majority of the budget dedicated to non-social services, though? I know it was in the 80s/early 90s... It's possible that eight years of Clinton/Gore may have changed that, but I haven't seen any recent figures.
Josh Sisk
Why? The top 10% probably consume about 1% of government expenditures for social programs. The consumers of those programs should be supporting them.
Why? Those programs are "social insurance". I'm happy to give up part of my earnings if it means that the bottom 10% get their monthly check and health care so they don't turn to a life of crime... Not to mention, I like the idea that, if something catastrophic happens to me (I become a parapalegic, etc.) I will have some sort of aid to fall back on.
Also, I believe that a larger percentage of taxes goes to non-social programs... Things like defense, the FDA, FCC, law enforcement, prisons, the space program, etc... These are programs we all take advantage of.
Josh Sisk
But what about sitautions where a company figures out how something works, then makes their own version that is different, but accomplishes the same task? Isn't that what happened with the Cotton Gin? And the automobile? I agree that they shouldn't be able to just copy someone's circuits, but I certainly hope that the hardware field doesn't go as crazy over IP as the software side has (Things like Amazon's 1-click shopping come to mind).
Josh Sisk
No offense, does the average "I just want to check my email" user really have a use for learning how to use the command line?
Hmm, yeah, over extended periods of time I agree any intoxicating substance can have a big effect on you... Even caffiene, I'd imagine.
Your idea of getting out more is listening to Matt Drudge on the radio?
Well, that hospitalization would be because the person couldn't handle what s/he took mentally, not that it was physically life threatening or something.
I have to admit to not having extensive experience with drugs, but as far as I can tell, smoking pot makes you:
a: sleepy
b: hungry
c: think things are funny when they are not.
I don't see how anyone would not be able to "handle what s/he took mentally". LSD maybe, but not pot. However, I can see a rise in late night Cheetos and Beef Jerky overdose 911 calls.
Josh Sisk
The amusing thing about this fellow's post is that he is basically quoting statements made on today's Rush Limbaugh show.
Now, I'm not saying that his facts are wrong... I don't know if they are. But neither does this guy. He just knows that Rush said it on his show today. I listen to Rush most days while I'm at work (I don't see eye to eye with Limbaugh, but his show is very entertaining), and today was the first day that Gore's homosexual comments came up...
Josh Sisk
Where? In the middle of Arkansas? Rent in the big city, my friend, is upwards of $1000 a month...
Actually it is the most successful console ever, period... At least in terms of units sold.
Generally when they do this, the Windows Driver info is stored on a seperate partition, or someplace in the windows directory... or something like that. I bought an cheap computer for my parents and it came with one of those "System Reinstall" discs, not a Windows disk. However, when I attempted to install hardware, it pulled a driver list from somewhere on the HD. I didn't bother to check if it was a partition or what. It reminds me of one of my friends who had two CD-rom drives on his machine... One he just kept his 95 cd in, so he wouldn't have to dig for it when he changed his network settings or installed hardware.
But you have, I'm sure, very computer-literate people installing these systems in your offices. I'm sure if I installed Linux on my parent's computer, they could surf and so forth just fine.
However, I'm equally sure that when they come home from CompUSA with a spanking new scanner/printer/cd-rw, they will not be able to install it without extensive help (and maybe not at all). Also, I know that they wouldn't be able to compile software. Linux is great in an environment where you have techs on hand to work with it, set it up just right, etc. But for an average user? No way. My mother could not install Linux on a machine. I think she could set up Windows, however. With a little help from a "For Dummies" book, she definitely could.
Another thing... My parents use AOL. They barely understand it. Actually, they don't. I get questions all the time about the various functions of AOL (of which I know little about). My solution is to turn on AOL, fumble around until I figure out how to do what they want. I show them and they express suprise and awe at the fact that I figured it out. I stress that all I did, basically, was press every button until I got the one that did what they wanted and they could have done the same, but they still call on me to figure out this stuff. They are intimidated by AOL and don't want to mess with it. There is no way they could deal with drive partitions, TCP/IP settings, etc. Would never happen, will never happen, could never happen.
Josh Sisk
They are probably running scared, just trying to figure out a way to compete against something that is free, stable, easy, and more efficient.
Running scared? Please. I'm sorry, but no matter how simple any Linux installation is, it will have very little effect on MS's market share, especially among the home users (who make up most of the market). These are people who:
a) Only buy big name brand computers anyway, so they already have Windows (and a library of Windows software).
b) Would have trouble installing WinZip, much less Windows, so you can forget them even considering Linux. No matter how simple you make it, it's always going to be more complex than Windows.
c) Need Office, (or think they do) which isn't likely to be available for Linux any time soon.
d) Connect to the net via America Online, which I doubt is available for Linux.
e) Want all their old software to work on it and want to be able to get software/files from their friends/family/work... who all have Windows.
MS is not going to feel a signifigant bite from Linux in the home user market, probably ever, definitely not in the next five to ten years. As far as the geek market goes, they've already lost that and if they think they can get it back, they are fooling themselves. But the geek market is much, much smaller and is also probably less lucrative anyway (I know I haven't bought a copy of Windows since 3.11, and I usually specify that I get my machines without it installed- the only MS products I can remeber buying in the last few years are Age of Empires and my Intellimouse Explorer).
Josh Sisk
In fact consoles are just horrible for most multiple player games. I tried to play a few, but got sick of looking at my window which was a 1/4 of the screen. Even on a 27" TV this is small and the low resolution does not help this any.
Yeah, but could you play Tony Hawk or Mario Kart with friends who were at your house on your computer? Which probably has a smaller screen than your TV? And which is probably no where near your couch?
The best multiplayer experience I have in my own home is console multiplayer. I consider it way more fun to sit on my couch and play Mario Kart 64 with a few friends, yelling at them when they shoot me, cackling madly and talking trash when I win, then playing with anonymous internet opponents. (LAN parties or LAN gaming places are a lot of fun, but I don't have the room or time for that sort of thing at home.) I play multiplayer FPS maybe a few times a month now, whereas I used to play every night. Not enough time anymore. However, I do play Tony Hawk against my friends 3-4 times a week. I don't think the PC will replace console gaming or vice versa. They are two different animals, that do different things well.
Josh Sisk
Now that we've got sub $1000 PCs, I don't see the point in spending so much money for an obviously limited console.
Have you ever tried playing a fighting game with a few friends on your computer? Or how about a four-player racing game? Or Madden?
Certain games (fighting, football, etc.) are just plain more fun on a console than on your computer. The same thing is true for other game genres. I can't imagine playing Starcraft on a Playstation... Or, for that matter, Quake.
Plus, the "put the disc in, turn it on, play" aspect of consoles is nice, when just wanna lay back on the couch and play for a few minutes.
Josh Sisk
If you ever get bored, download an SNES emulator and some ROMS and have some fun... you will discover that it was the best console ever.
I don't think it compare to the original NES. Sure, the SNES is better, but it's an evolutionary leap better than the NES. The first time I saw a NES game (Zelda?), I was floored. I just couldn't believe it, and I knew I had to have one. Man, I whined for months about that to my parents, mowed what seemed like a million lawns, harassed neighbours to let me wash their cars- I didn't care, I had to have it.
Josh Sisk
I'd have used a front-loading CD-cartridge design, myself. If they're intending for the user to truck it around wherever, that flip-top is a damn bad idea.
Most portable cd players have flip-top lids and they seem to do alright. As long as it's made out of rugged plastic, I doubt it will be a big problem.
Josh Sisk
The realizable abuse it to make money off your neighbors while degrading the quality of the grid.
How does it hurt the grid? I'm not challenging that it does; merely wondering how, and why.
Josh Sisk