As far as the widgets comment goes, that was purely based on what was written in other articles here on Slashdot (including one today). I don't know much about that subject, which is why I posed it as a question.
Are you seriously picking at using a form of "maintain" instead of "assert"? When I double-check my dictionary (m-w.com), it lists "assert" as one of the definitions to "maintain", as well as a synonym. My writing isn't perfect, but I think you are being silly now.
You never addressed the question of whether they are against the application or the content. I can only assume, since you seem to be taking a contrarian viewpoint, that you think it's the application rather than the content.
Considering that the reasons that Steve Jobs gave in his open letter criticized both the standard (and therefor the content) and the application, you could have been reasonably justified in saying that Apple doesn't like either. If that's the case, then it still would suggest that Apple is not going to like Flash content rendered through JavaScript anymore than through the Flash application.
However, if you are implying that it's the app itself, not the content, then your position seems to be just as much as an "unsupported assertion" as my own.
Is the "clincher" Flash applications, or the Flash content? Some here are suggesting that it's the application that Apple is against, but I maintain it's the content.
And hasn't Apple said they don't like widget type apps also?
Also, maybe it is not all about profit. There's also control...
I think it has a lot more to do with being the gatekeepers for content (and continuing to get a cut of the profit) than with flash content itself. They don't want people using apps and games on their platform that you didn't buy from the app store, hence no Flash or Java on the i-devices.
The military using Wii fit and DDR in order to help shape up their incoming overweight recruits is cute, but it's really not the best way of going about it. The obvious answer an obesity epidemic in America can easily be found in our answers to other things that threaten us.
Criminalization.
We'll make driving while obese illegal, put in mandatory weigh-ins to prove you aren't too fat to buy high calorie foods, ban cheeseburgers, put in fat scanners in airports, put and start putting them in prison. Then we can make mandatory Obesity Registration Lists so that people in your neighborhood will know that you are fat.
Zero tolerance. We won't care if you just had a baby, have some medical condition that led to it, the law is the law!
Science and Faith are the opposites, not Belief. "Belief", alone, is too vague.
Science is about what we believe, based on our best available evidence. Faith is about what we believe, despite our best available evidence. New knowledge and ideas can cause upheavals in either, but with Science, the end goal is to find truth, not preserve it.
This is exactly how I started! My father had a CoCo when I was about 9 years old, and I would go through his books and manuals that were included. I remember writing some very simple BASIC programs, and it was a great learning experience.
Also, back then there wasn't downloading games off the internet. Finding a BBS was as close as you could get. However, more often than not, you ended up having to manually type in programs listed in magazines such as Rainbow and Hot CoCo.
Quite often you made typos. When you didn't make typos, there were often bugs in the magazine. Having to debug these bugs was also a great learning experience.
but they were able to pay for the gaming pc that it requires.
Take your pick among the following responses:
1) It's a strange but true fact that if you have a sum of money and then spend some of it, you will have less than what you started. It is entirely possible that a person could afford one but not both of those choices, and buying games and downloading a computer is far less effective strategy.
2) Similar to #1, just because you had enough money to buy a computer at one point in the past, does not mean that you will always continue to have enough money to buy more stuff.
3) Not everyone who pirates owns the computer they are on, as well as some people posses computers that were purchased by someone else.
I also saw piracy in college and it had nothing to do with ability to pay. People could find the money for beer and pot but not games or music.
Wait! Are you trying to suggest that if college students can avoid paying for something (without going to jail) in order to have free money for partying, that they will?! Someone stop the presses, we've got a story here!
Of course they pinch pennies, exploit systems, bum food from their parents, sneak into dining halls, do laundry at home, etc, in order to save money, whether or not it's for partying.
I was a penny pinching college student, and I didn't even drink or do drugs.
Don't make excuses for people that steal luxury entertainment.
I'm not justifying piracy, I'm saying that it's overestimated (and over-zealously demonized). Just because I recognize that their claims are faulty doesn't mean that I'm supporting piracy.
I'm in favor of supporting content producers. I'm also in favor of more reasonable copyright protections and laws.
If they didn't comply with the formal communication that states that the work is not infringing, then you could criticize Google for "policing the internet", but there is no evidence that there was a formal document refuting infringement.
Google was acting in compliance with a dumb law, so criticize the law, the lawmakers, and the copyright holders, but there is no reason here to criticize those forced to follow it.
Who said anything about being entitled to it for free?
His point (which is very true) is that a pirated download doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale. I don't think it even means a lost sale the majority of the time. People who pirate games are:
1) People who are cheap asses and don't buy games because they can pirate for free. If piracy wasn't an option, they still probably would still buy some games, but they wouldn't buy nearly as many as they'd be willing to pirate.
2) People who can't afford the games. If piracy wasn't an option, they still couldn't afford them.
3) People who are unsure of a game and want to try it out. Some of these people will still end up buying a game if they like it (or like it enough).
4) People who only pirate a game because they could get it for free, and wouldn't bother with the game if they actually had to pay for it.
These are the most common 4 scenarios, and in EVERY scenario, the number of pirated copies is greater than the number of "lost sales". In half of these scenarios, the number of "lost sales" is actually 0% of the number of copies pirated.
They are just complying with the law, however dumb it might be.
Complying with the copyright holder's takedown request shields Google from any possible liability. The law is structured in such a way that copyright holders have an unfair share of power in the whole affair, while the providers of internet services are caught in the middle where the law implies a legal obligation to assume that the takedown notice is a legitimate claim. At least that's my understanding of the DMCA.
Ok, well I do think you are right that it probably won't make a difference in the casual gamer demographic.
However, I think there's at least a remote chance that current 360 owners might find an interest in Natal, if the software for it is strong.
The funny thing about the fans who decide to take sides in the console wars is that often one side is dismissive of a feature or game that the other camp has, up until the time they get it themselves. Could motion and body control be like that on the 360? I don't know, but I think it's at least remotely possible.
Also, Playstation Eye comparisons aren't completely fair. The Eye never got it's killer app. I don't recall it having any title that was even close to compelling for it.
E3 is coming soon, maybe actual software will be revealed for Natal.
I find it amusing how those who like to bash the Wii tend to automatically take the position of being a more "serious" or "hardcore" gamer, and dismiss the Wii as just casual gaming.
Sure, the Wii has a lot of appeal to casual gamers (and that's not a bad thing), but it has a lot of appeal to old school gamers, gaming aficionado, and gamers that recognize that you can have great games without headshots and teabagging your opponent in 1080p resolution.
I also acknowledge that there is a lot of shovelware, but every generation the best selling console is the one that gets the most shovelware. It's certainly not unique or new to this system.
There are a quite a few really great titles on the Wii (with and without wag), and if you think that there are no good third party titles then you aren't paying attention.
I have my criticisms of the Wii as well (and all the systems), but people who come off as being too "serious" of a gamer for the Wii make me roll my eyes.
For the record, I own a Wii, a 360, and a fairly beefy gaming PC. Good games are good games, regardless of what system they are on, how old or new they are, how much wag they have or don't have, or what resolution they are at.
I've had dreams where I wasn't sure. However, if it happens to occur to you while in a dream, there are actually certain exercises that one can do within a dream to attempt to test if you are in a dream or not.
Usually light switches don't really work in dreams. It's hard to read in dreams, letters tend to change or look non-nonsensical; reading something and then looking away for a moment and then rereading it will usually result in the words changing completely. Looking at clocks or watches tends to be much like trying to read. Often music and songs that you hear will change from the normal version.
There are many weird quirks in dreams that really give them away, if one has the presence of mind to actually check them, however thinking to check is the tricky part.
Well, lucid dreaming implies that you are aware that you are dreaming. One can exert control over one's dreams without actually realizing that it is a dream. In the dream they might have abilities or powers that are not present in reality and they might seem completely believable to you in your dream state.
One doesn't have to realize they are dreaming in order to fly in the dream, right?
However, this might imply that a gamer might be more successful in lucid dreaming as well.
Just because there are many quacks that get involved with the subject of lucid dreaming doesn't mean that the entire subject is without interest or merit.
I admit that gaming and gaming themes have many times infiltrated my dreams. I remember a couple years ago I had an odd dream where there were zombies or something in them, and in the dream I was able to fight them off using powers similar to those of Paladins in games.
However, was I better prepared to handle this strange dream because of the influence of gaming, or did I dream about zombies in the first place because of games and horror films?
Secondly, if dreams are like scenarios that our brain plays out to practice dealing with threats, does that mean that those who immerse themselves in worlds of fantasy in science fiction entertainment (either in the form of television, movies, or games) to the point that they seep into their dreams end up training their brain to practice running through scenarios that are in reality a waste of the brain's time to consider?
Well... a waste up until the zombie apocalypse actually occurs, of course.
I thought that a troll was someone who is trying to upset people...
If some of you are such Sony fan boys that simply making a joke that pokes fun of a recent and absolutely factual occurrence is interpreted as trying to upset people or stir up trouble, then I think you really need to reconsider the importance that a video game console holds in your life...
It's still very cool. I can hardly wait until this have been out on the market long enough for Sony to give a firmware update to remove some of its features!
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the widgets comment goes, that was purely based on what was written in other articles here on Slashdot (including one today). I don't know much about that subject, which is why I posed it as a question.
Are you seriously picking at using a form of "maintain" instead of "assert"? When I double-check my dictionary (m-w.com), it lists "assert" as one of the definitions to "maintain", as well as a synonym. My writing isn't perfect, but I think you are being silly now.
You never addressed the question of whether they are against the application or the content. I can only assume, since you seem to be taking a contrarian viewpoint, that you think it's the application rather than the content.
Considering that the reasons that Steve Jobs gave in his open letter criticized both the standard (and therefor the content) and the application, you could have been reasonably justified in saying that Apple doesn't like either. If that's the case, then it still would suggest that Apple is not going to like Flash content rendered through JavaScript anymore than through the Flash application.
However, if you are implying that it's the app itself, not the content, then your position seems to be just as much as an "unsupported assertion" as my own.
Is the "clincher" Flash applications, or the Flash content? Some here are suggesting that it's the application that Apple is against, but I maintain it's the content.
And hasn't Apple said they don't like widget type apps also?
Also, maybe it is not all about profit. There's also control...
I want to throw in that it's really slow in Firefox under XP as well, but it runs great with Chrome.
I think they are suffering from the slashdot effect though. It took a few tries to successfully load.
I don't buy your take on things.
I think it has a lot more to do with being the gatekeepers for content (and continuing to get a cut of the profit) than with flash content itself. They don't want people using apps and games on their platform that you didn't buy from the app store, hence no Flash or Java on the i-devices.
Some of us Americans don't either... though we seemed to be in a minority.
The military using Wii fit and DDR in order to help shape up their incoming overweight recruits is cute, but it's really not the best way of going about it. The obvious answer an obesity epidemic in America can easily be found in our answers to other things that threaten us.
Criminalization.
We'll make driving while obese illegal, put in mandatory weigh-ins to prove you aren't too fat to buy high calorie foods, ban cheeseburgers, put in fat scanners in airports, put and start putting them in prison. Then we can make mandatory Obesity Registration Lists so that people in your neighborhood will know that you are fat.
Zero tolerance. We won't care if you just had a baby, have some medical condition that led to it, the law is the law!
Science and Faith are the opposites, not Belief. "Belief", alone, is too vague.
Science is about what we believe, based on our best available evidence. Faith is about what we believe, despite our best available evidence. New knowledge and ideas can cause upheavals in either, but with Science, the end goal is to find truth, not preserve it.
This is exactly how I started! My father had a CoCo when I was about 9 years old, and I would go through his books and manuals that were included. I remember writing some very simple BASIC programs, and it was a great learning experience.
Also, back then there wasn't downloading games off the internet. Finding a BBS was as close as you could get. However, more often than not, you ended up having to manually type in programs listed in magazines such as Rainbow and Hot CoCo.
Quite often you made typos. When you didn't make typos, there were often bugs in the magazine. Having to debug these bugs was also a great learning experience.
However, CLOAD was not a great experience. ;-)
but they were able to pay for the gaming pc that it requires.
Take your pick among the following responses:
1) It's a strange but true fact that if you have a sum of money and then spend some of it, you will have less than what you started. It is entirely possible that a person could afford one but not both of those choices, and buying games and downloading a computer is far less effective strategy.
2) Similar to #1, just because you had enough money to buy a computer at one point in the past, does not mean that you will always continue to have enough money to buy more stuff.
3) Not everyone who pirates owns the computer they are on, as well as some people posses computers that were purchased by someone else.
I also saw piracy in college and it had nothing to do with ability to pay. People could find the money for beer and pot but not games or music.
Wait! Are you trying to suggest that if college students can avoid paying for something (without going to jail) in order to have free money for partying, that they will?! Someone stop the presses, we've got a story here!
Of course they pinch pennies, exploit systems, bum food from their parents, sneak into dining halls, do laundry at home, etc, in order to save money, whether or not it's for partying.
I was a penny pinching college student, and I didn't even drink or do drugs.
Don't make excuses for people that steal luxury entertainment.
I'm not justifying piracy, I'm saying that it's overestimated (and over-zealously demonized). Just because I recognize that their claims are faulty doesn't mean that I'm supporting piracy.
I'm in favor of supporting content producers. I'm also in favor of more reasonable copyright protections and laws.
If they didn't comply with the formal communication that states that the work is not infringing, then you could criticize Google for "policing the internet", but there is no evidence that there was a formal document refuting infringement.
Google was acting in compliance with a dumb law, so criticize the law, the lawmakers, and the copyright holders, but there is no reason here to criticize those forced to follow it.
Who said anything about being entitled to it for free?
His point (which is very true) is that a pirated download doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale. I don't think it even means a lost sale the majority of the time. People who pirate games are:
1) People who are cheap asses and don't buy games because they can pirate for free. If piracy wasn't an option, they still probably would still buy some games, but they wouldn't buy nearly as many as they'd be willing to pirate.
2) People who can't afford the games. If piracy wasn't an option, they still couldn't afford them.
3) People who are unsure of a game and want to try it out. Some of these people will still end up buying a game if they like it (or like it enough).
4) People who only pirate a game because they could get it for free, and wouldn't bother with the game if they actually had to pay for it.
These are the most common 4 scenarios, and in EVERY scenario, the number of pirated copies is greater than the number of "lost sales". In half of these scenarios, the number of "lost sales" is actually 0% of the number of copies pirated.
They are just complying with the law, however dumb it might be.
Complying with the copyright holder's takedown request shields Google from any possible liability. The law is structured in such a way that copyright holders have an unfair share of power in the whole affair, while the providers of internet services are caught in the middle where the law implies a legal obligation to assume that the takedown notice is a legitimate claim. At least that's my understanding of the DMCA.
Of course the real tell-tale sign you are in a dream when trying to adjust a volume level is that the knob won't go to 11!
Ok, well I do think you are right that it probably won't make a difference in the casual gamer demographic.
However, I think there's at least a remote chance that current 360 owners might find an interest in Natal, if the software for it is strong.
The funny thing about the fans who decide to take sides in the console wars is that often one side is dismissive of a feature or game that the other camp has, up until the time they get it themselves. Could motion and body control be like that on the 360? I don't know, but I think it's at least remotely possible.
Also, Playstation Eye comparisons aren't completely fair. The Eye never got it's killer app. I don't recall it having any title that was even close to compelling for it.
E3 is coming soon, maybe actual software will be revealed for Natal.
I find it amusing how those who like to bash the Wii tend to automatically take the position of being a more "serious" or "hardcore" gamer, and dismiss the Wii as just casual gaming.
Sure, the Wii has a lot of appeal to casual gamers (and that's not a bad thing), but it has a lot of appeal to old school gamers, gaming aficionado, and gamers that recognize that you can have great games without headshots and teabagging your opponent in 1080p resolution.
I also acknowledge that there is a lot of shovelware, but every generation the best selling console is the one that gets the most shovelware. It's certainly not unique or new to this system.
There are a quite a few really great titles on the Wii (with and without wag), and if you think that there are no good third party titles then you aren't paying attention.
I have my criticisms of the Wii as well (and all the systems), but people who come off as being too "serious" of a gamer for the Wii make me roll my eyes.
For the record, I own a Wii, a 360, and a fairly beefy gaming PC. Good games are good games, regardless of what system they are on, how old or new they are, how much wag they have or don't have, or what resolution they are at.
True "serious" and "hardcore" gamers know that.
I've had dreams where I wasn't sure. However, if it happens to occur to you while in a dream, there are actually certain exercises that one can do within a dream to attempt to test if you are in a dream or not.
Usually light switches don't really work in dreams. It's hard to read in dreams, letters tend to change or look non-nonsensical; reading something and then looking away for a moment and then rereading it will usually result in the words changing completely. Looking at clocks or watches tends to be much like trying to read. Often music and songs that you hear will change from the normal version.
There are many weird quirks in dreams that really give them away, if one has the presence of mind to actually check them, however thinking to check is the tricky part.
Well, lucid dreaming implies that you are aware that you are dreaming. One can exert control over one's dreams without actually realizing that it is a dream. In the dream they might have abilities or powers that are not present in reality and they might seem completely believable to you in your dream state.
One doesn't have to realize they are dreaming in order to fly in the dream, right?
However, this might imply that a gamer might be more successful in lucid dreaming as well.
Just because there are many quacks that get involved with the subject of lucid dreaming doesn't mean that the entire subject is without interest or merit.
I admit that gaming and gaming themes have many times infiltrated my dreams. I remember a couple years ago I had an odd dream where there were zombies or something in them, and in the dream I was able to fight them off using powers similar to those of Paladins in games.
However, was I better prepared to handle this strange dream because of the influence of gaming, or did I dream about zombies in the first place because of games and horror films?
Secondly, if dreams are like scenarios that our brain plays out to practice dealing with threats, does that mean that those who immerse themselves in worlds of fantasy in science fiction entertainment (either in the form of television, movies, or games) to the point that they seep into their dreams end up training their brain to practice running through scenarios that are in reality a waste of the brain's time to consider?
Well... a waste up until the zombie apocalypse actually occurs, of course.
One might think that...
"Sony Hit With Fourth Class Action Lawsuit" - http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1092140p1.html
Putting Linux on the Playstation 3 was not the work of hackers, but there by original design.
There was a built-in option in the OS menus that said, "Install other OS".
Sony listed the ability to install another OS on their specs and features lists.
I believe it was printed on the box originally also.
They had executives who tried to assure customers that they weren't going to be removing this feature... shortly before they removed the feature.
Installing Linux on other console systems involved hacking. On the PS3, it was a feature... until they decided it wasn't anymore.
I thought that a troll was someone who is trying to upset people...
If some of you are such Sony fan boys that simply making a joke that pokes fun of a recent and absolutely factual occurrence is interpreted as trying to upset people or stir up trouble, then I think you really need to reconsider the importance that a video game console holds in your life...
It's still very cool. I can hardly wait until this have been out on the market long enough for Sony to give a firmware update to remove some of its features!
In my defense, at some point in the past, it was once the present.