If Slashdot removes the objectionable material on the basis of Microsoft's editorial censorship, then they are guilty of suppressing free speech on the word of questionable legal and ethical authority, and without suitable review.
If Slashdot removes material that they evaluate themselves based on Microsoft's complaint, they establish a precedent of a medium being fully responsible for the content posted thereto.
Either of these is a dangerous position, and the desire by editors of Slashdot to ruminate and consult is respectable and reasonable. I appreciate further that we posting, reviewing, and (in some cases) moderating members have some input into their final concession (if applicable).
Now as to the Microsoft part, I whole-heartedly agree;)
The reputation factor got him in the door, but read his comments to decide whether he is credible or not. The fact that you publicly ask rather than evaluating tells me you have not read his comments in the first place.
My suspicion is that it is similar to the Beretta ruling of the 80's. The firearms company sued Chevy and lost because the industries are in no way competitive one with another (as determined by the court).
Driving on the roads of Florida, I can assure you that the goods are used in a complementary manner though;]
Good points. I analyze it exactly the opposite though for the long run.
All console gaming systems can do is improve the experience they have already delivered for a long time. Other than building the ability to tie them together, it is a raising of the ante for "more of the same".
But PCs are boasting the following: (1) faster CPUs; (2) faster graphics and sound subsystems; (3) unified graphics and sound APIs (e.g. D3D, OpenGL); (4) greater household penetration; (5) TV output and access to unique controllers (via USB, etc).
This tells me that developing for the PC will become like developing for an appliance - you can guarantee everyone will have one and that it will be fast enough to handle the gaming load. With the unified APIs, PCs will finally have the ease to program that game consoles do. They will essentially have abstracted the hardware to one set of commands, the advantage the game machines have always had.
As my last replier rightly pointed out, there are very few ports from console to PC right now. But there are more than there have ever been, and I expect the trend to continue and deepen as people realize the power of the ubiquitous and capable PC.
Speaking of the here and now, game consoles are still dominant due to their price-performance, but I expect that to change over the long haul.
The one wildcard seems to be people like yourself who like the console gaming experience (after seeing the newest generation of consoles, I cannot fault you at all). I expect this is an issue of visual technologies which can also see some adjustment over time, but it remains to be seen.
You make excellent points, my amino acid friend. I suppose I considered it much more from the development stage; the games are programmed on PCs and "ported" (same hardware with keyboard and a compiler I admit).
While definitely giving you your due, I still think the console game manufacturing companies have more ability to port anywhere as they predominantly make games, and reformatting a given product (whether it be from the PC world or not) to their platform may prove important. Cross-over the other way (console to PC) sort of furthers that point, that they are more efficient at it. At least they will port better than the open source community who are not unified even in desire to see games, let alone port them.
As to your rant, all I can do is nod with a stupid sculpted smile. It all sounds pretty reasonable given your stated preferences. I have owned game consoles, but not in a while - the industry has really changed since then. Although I have played PC games as well, I do not get into these as much as I used to. Sorry, but I like FPS over anything else (the PC versions are much better IMHO), nothing to any great extreme. I am not a gaming snob or anti-game elitist, just somewhat apathetic.
Given that we sent the world a signal not once but twice in 1945, would it not have been redundant to do it again in the late 50's? Yes, it was a different show of force, but would we explode a nuke to give 'em the what-for everytime we were losing at something? The Soviets take more medals in the Olympics, so we blow up a track-and-field stadium?!
I think Ike missed an opportunity with this one. He could have eroded Americans' faith in government a full year or two before he actually did with the U2 incident.
Anyone who would flame you over supporting a M$oft gaming API is just not being realistic. Windows has far-and-away outrun alternate PC-based platforms for being game friendly, and I for one agree whole-heartedly.
Basically, Epic is only going to create for Direct3D, a Windows-resident API. If someone wants to port, they can, but Epic is not going to do it for them. Epic for their part will use the API to the extent possible so that someone can plug in a Linux, Mac or game console API later to fill the void.
This tells me that the ports just will not get done, at least not in a timely manner. If Epic sees no value in designing for the Linux APIs that do exist, then why will someone else? Maybe an open source effort, but that will not be timely enough to make these game ports current on other platforms (open source's stength is freedom, not breakneck speed of release).
And as for the PlayStation 2 port, I am not impressed. The companies that make game consoles have certainly long seen the writing on the wall. They must have replacement APIs for Direct3D (or complete implementations of it) for their systems already, or they cannot enjoy ports of the best and brightest PC games promoting their systems. Games are their bread and butter, not a sideline.
People get real work done in Linux, and the effort toward the gaming market is simply not there to make these ports a "six-month" affair. And as we know from watching the PC game market, gamers are a fickle bunch, and have tunnel vision toward the new and exotic.
The facility to create Unicode programs has been there for quite some time. In fact, most programming libraries make it quite easy to invoke. Even the size issue is not an absolute, as you can write versions that restrict the character set to a practical subset based on which language/region is in scope.
The problem is that to do so involved programming effort, and with the quick development cycle of today, it makes use of Unicode really unlikely unless it is a very international company.
I am always amazed at the irrepressible spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship in the U.S. Unfortunately, the spirit of entrepreneurship is often greater among lawyers. Has anyone considered the liability issues of this (I am seriously asking)? Who insures such a project, and are the perceived gains greater than the realistic risks and costs? Is it just me that regrets having to think about such things this way in such a litigious social climate?
In a purely political sense, it would be great if the private sector could take away the social arguments against realizing the potential of space. NASA could slowly become a regulatory agency in the vein of the FAA. I just wonder about the impact of introducing space exploration to capitalism in its most rabid form.
-L
The grim, dark history of MP3
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 4
Rome fell, not because of barbarian hoards, but because of the MP3s these uncivilized men listened to...
When the Titanic went down, the last thing heard was the bubbly drowning of the captain's MP3s playing...
When Hitler was in art school in the 1920's, he heard music in MP3 format, and the rest is history...
Based on everything you read nowadays, I have to believe that the MP3 technology is the proverbial anti-christ, and all because it keeps the members of Metallica from buying more houses. Why did the RIAA not resist the incursion of CD-Rs? These have had the potential for years of costing them huge money. Why do they not resist tape players having a "record" button? That is the easiest way to reproduce music.
I think the whole MP3 thing just shows how afraid people are of computer technology. Because it is on a computer, it must be a more insidious evil. I agree that it is easier to trade files on Napster than to trade Grateful Dead tapes by hand, but the human networks will never really threaten the bands in the way true pirates do.
Those people who mass-produce CDs in rickety Singapore warehouses are the people who really poach from the music industry, and they sell the product, creating a zero-sum loss of revenues for the recording industry. Those people who trade are really just in the promotion business, and although their acts are illegal, they are not earth-shattering to the avaricious companies that sell recordings. I would wager that by putting more music in the hands of more people, they are unknowingly and pragmatically supporting the industry that hates them.
Am I trying to make excuses for lawbreakers? No, not really, but sometimes the economic reality is in no way representative of the motivations. Capitalism is theoretically based on the idea that people are self-motivated, and American capitalism relies on people being downright hedonistic. Get a clue and ride the wave, RIAA!
Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly notified of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will remove the above referenced comments from its servers and forward our complaint to the owner of the referenced comments.
Is the owner of the "referenced comments" known in all of these cases? I know I saw Anonymous Coward on the list once. Does this person have to be notified, and if so, must/. necessarily prohibit all anonymous postings to satisfy the DMCA in cases of liability? That seems like it would detract from both one's freedom of speech and one's privacy.
Hmm, I find myself in a conspicuous minority here. I neither hate Red Hat nor think they are making a good move by investing in Open Source development.
The whole point about Red Hat is packaging, and I do not mean the graphics on the pretty box. They take some enigmatic element of Linux (e.g. install, adding packages, etc.) and make it usable and accessible to a strata of people who probably otherwise would not use Linux. They cater to the demand side - people want a stable OS without much hassle, and they deliver.
I wish they would look at Open Source from the demand side too. There are solutions to a great many problems already in existence out there, needing only the proper PR and "packaging" to bring them into wider use. If Red Hat devoted their money and energy to the packaging and promotion of existing technologies, it would be money and effort better spent in the cause of proliferating what most of us believe is a better way. It would most likely feed back to their greater concern now that they are public - their bottom line.
Agreed that paper is still the most useful form of storage if done right (acid free, well stored, etc.), but the digitalized form does address two major issues:
(1) accessibility of the data from anywhere; (2) having an additional archive for redundancy.
Being a history buff myself, I have something of an attachment to good old paper and it's close friend microfiche.:)
Much like a lot of people on this forum, I do not like what Metallica is doing. They are about the biggest moneymaker out there right now, and cracking down on Napster makes them pretty cheap. But you must admit...
Anyone who goes online believing their privacy intact is fooling themself. The same that goes for corporate email goes for online activity in general. If it is not meticulously guarded with strong encryption, there is no reasonable guarantee of security.
Moreover, Napster is a community, and in order to be one, it's doors must be opened, and yes, to this sort of snooping too as a side effect. You cannot have it both ways. Metallica (I doubt strongly they thought of it) has brilliantly exploited this in order to make their case, something that you must grudgingly respect. You can hate them, but the community has been busted by "the man" for their free ride, and they can be angry about it, but so it goes.
Good point, they are there, but I was referring to the order of the listing. The authors may even claim that there is no value in the apparent order, but even if so, they brainstormed them in that order which makes it significant.
Highways are a curious choice at first glance, but I think (not absolutely positive) that they are commenting on a national highway system such as the U.S. rolled out starting with Ike.
The Roman iter was used for similar purposes such as moving the armies, aiding commerce, and allowing human movement. But the Interstate system organized the roads to geographically balance travel, and to provide uniform systems of maintenance and guidance. It also brought an economy of scale to road-building (just due to volume of construction).
It is probably better to think of highways in this context as a system rather than just warm asphalt pathways.
Their list seems to favor human comfort and convenience over communication. If Aristotle is correct and "man is a social animal", this ordering is not too keen.
In this game, the object is to get a bunch of irregular objects (which are labeled as Microsoft products) to fit into seamless levels. Of course the pace of the game and the point stakes increasingly rise to match the level of the action. But be careful! If you have tremendous success and end up with complementary products tightly bundled, the game causes the screen to be split into two areas, and you have to make the products fit somehow anyway despite the partition!
Another reply worked this out pretty well on a technical level, but how about the philosophical level?
Microsoft would *never* commit their documents to an industry compliant DTD (or group of DTDs). They have made their place in this industry by de-commoditizing standards, not by promoting them. Look at Java, Visual Basic, etc. And certainly Microsoft has taught their competition to use the same tactics.
Microsoft absolute dominates the office suite sector right now, and to cater to a standard simply does them no good whatsoever.
You got it. This just happens to be a fight that they can compete in (for the moment). Too bad they can't tell how many people used a CDR to burn one of their CDs for a buddy. Too bad they cannot tell how many people produced a cassette of their album for profit. They are just throwing down the gauntlet on a challenge that they cannot win in the long run.
It is really too bad their music is so lousy, or it might be worth pirating.
Slashdot Mirror
I respect your opinion, but humbly disagree.
;)
If Slashdot removes the objectionable material on the basis of Microsoft's editorial censorship, then they are guilty of suppressing free speech on the word of questionable legal and ethical authority, and without suitable review.
If Slashdot removes material that they evaluate themselves based on Microsoft's complaint, they establish a precedent of a medium being fully responsible for the content posted thereto.
Either of these is a dangerous position, and the desire by editors of Slashdot to ruminate and consult is respectable and reasonable. I appreciate further that we posting, reviewing, and (in some cases) moderating members have some input into their final concession (if applicable).
Now as to the Microsoft part, I whole-heartedly agree
-L
The reputation factor got him in the door, but read his comments to decide whether he is credible or not. The fact that you publicly ask rather than evaluating tells me you have not read his comments in the first place.
-L
My suspicion is that it is similar to the Beretta ruling of the 80's. The firearms company sued Chevy and lost because the industries are in no way competitive one with another (as determined by the court).
;]
Driving on the roads of Florida, I can assure you that the goods are used in a complementary manner though
-L
Good points. I analyze it exactly the opposite though for the long run.
All console gaming systems can do is improve the experience they have already delivered for a long time. Other than building the ability to tie them together, it is a raising of the ante for "more of the same".
But PCs are boasting the following:
(1) faster CPUs;
(2) faster graphics and sound subsystems;
(3) unified graphics and sound APIs (e.g. D3D, OpenGL);
(4) greater household penetration;
(5) TV output and access to unique controllers (via USB, etc).
This tells me that developing for the PC will become like developing for an appliance - you can guarantee everyone will have one and that it will be fast enough to handle the gaming load. With the unified APIs, PCs will finally have the ease to program that game consoles do. They will essentially have abstracted the hardware to one set of commands, the advantage the game machines have always had.
As my last replier rightly pointed out, there are very few ports from console to PC right now. But there are more than there have ever been, and I expect the trend to continue and deepen as people realize the power of the ubiquitous and capable PC.
Speaking of the here and now, game consoles are still dominant due to their price-performance, but I expect that to change over the long haul.
The one wildcard seems to be people like yourself who like the console gaming experience (after seeing the newest generation of consoles, I cannot fault you at all). I expect this is an issue of visual technologies which can also see some adjustment over time, but it remains to be seen.
-L
You make excellent points, my amino acid friend. I suppose I considered it much more from the development stage; the games are programmed on PCs and "ported" (same hardware with keyboard and a compiler I admit).
While definitely giving you your due, I still think the console game manufacturing companies have more ability to port anywhere as they predominantly make games, and reformatting a given product (whether it be from the PC world or not) to their platform may prove important. Cross-over the other way (console to PC) sort of furthers that point, that they are more efficient at it. At least they will port better than the open source community who are not unified even in desire to see games, let alone port them.
As to your rant, all I can do is nod with a stupid sculpted smile. It all sounds pretty reasonable given your stated preferences. I have owned game consoles, but not in a while - the industry has really changed since then. Although I have played PC games as well, I do not get into these as much as I used to. Sorry, but I like FPS over anything else (the PC versions are much better IMHO), nothing to any great extreme. I am not a gaming snob or anti-game elitist, just somewhat apathetic.
Cheers, and again good points all.
-L
Given that we sent the world a signal not once but twice in 1945, would it not have been redundant to do it again in the late 50's? Yes, it was a different show of force, but would we explode a nuke to give 'em the what-for everytime we were losing at something? The Soviets take more medals in the Olympics, so we blow up a track-and-field stadium?!
I think Ike missed an opportunity with this one. He could have eroded Americans' faith in government a full year or two before he actually did with the U2 incident.
-L
Anyone who would flame you over supporting a M$oft gaming API is just not being realistic. Windows has far-and-away outrun alternate PC-based platforms for being game friendly, and I for one agree whole-heartedly.
-L
Hmm, what is Brandon saying?
Basically, Epic is only going to create for Direct3D, a Windows-resident API. If someone wants to port, they can, but Epic is not going to do it for them. Epic for their part will use the API to the extent possible so that someone can plug in a Linux, Mac or game console API later to fill the void.
This tells me that the ports just will not get done, at least not in a timely manner. If Epic sees no value in designing for the Linux APIs that do exist, then why will someone else? Maybe an open source effort, but that will not be timely enough to make these game ports current on other platforms (open source's stength is freedom, not breakneck speed of release).
And as for the PlayStation 2 port, I am not impressed. The companies that make game consoles have certainly long seen the writing on the wall. They must have replacement APIs for Direct3D (or complete implementations of it) for their systems already, or they cannot enjoy ports of the best and brightest PC games promoting their systems. Games are their bread and butter, not a sideline.
People get real work done in Linux, and the effort toward the gaming market is simply not there to make these ports a "six-month" affair. And as we know from watching the PC game market, gamers are a fickle bunch, and have tunnel vision toward the new and exotic.
Just my take on the issue.
-L
The facility to create Unicode programs has been there for quite some time. In fact, most programming libraries make it quite easy to invoke. Even the size issue is not an absolute, as you can write versions that restrict the character set to a practical subset based on which language/region is in scope.
The problem is that to do so involved programming effort, and with the quick development cycle of today, it makes use of Unicode really unlikely unless it is a very international company.
-L
I am always amazed at the irrepressible spirit of adventure and entrepreneurship in the U.S. Unfortunately, the spirit of entrepreneurship is often greater among lawyers. Has anyone considered the liability issues of this (I am seriously asking)? Who insures such a project, and are the perceived gains greater than the realistic risks and costs? Is it just me that regrets having to think about such things this way in such a litigious social climate?
In a purely political sense, it would be great if the private sector could take away the social arguments against realizing the potential of space. NASA could slowly become a regulatory agency in the vein of the FAA. I just wonder about the impact of introducing space exploration to capitalism in its most rabid form.
-L
Rome fell, not because of barbarian hoards, but because of the MP3s these uncivilized men listened to...
When the Titanic went down, the last thing heard was the bubbly drowning of the captain's MP3s playing...
When Hitler was in art school in the 1920's, he heard music in MP3 format, and the rest is history...
Based on everything you read nowadays, I have to believe that the MP3 technology is the proverbial anti-christ, and all because it keeps the members of Metallica from buying more houses. Why did the RIAA not resist the incursion of CD-Rs? These have had the potential for years of costing them huge money. Why do they not resist tape players having a "record" button? That is the easiest way to reproduce music.
I think the whole MP3 thing just shows how afraid people are of computer technology. Because it is on a computer, it must be a more insidious evil. I agree that it is easier to trade files on Napster than to trade Grateful Dead tapes by hand, but the human networks will never really threaten the bands in the way true pirates do.
Those people who mass-produce CDs in rickety Singapore warehouses are the people who really poach from the music industry, and they sell the product, creating a zero-sum loss of revenues for the recording industry. Those people who trade are really just in the promotion business, and although their acts are illegal, they are not earth-shattering to the avaricious companies that sell recordings. I would wager that by putting more music in the hands of more people, they are unknowingly and pragmatically supporting the industry that hates them.
Am I trying to make excuses for lawbreakers? No, not really, but sometimes the economic reality is in no way representative of the motivations. Capitalism is theoretically based on the idea that people are self-motivated, and American capitalism relies on people being downright hedonistic. Get a clue and ride the wave, RIAA!
-L
Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly notified of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will remove the above referenced comments from its servers and forward our complaint to the owner of the referenced comments.
/. necessarily prohibit all anonymous postings to satisfy the DMCA in cases of liability? That seems like it would detract from both one's freedom of speech and one's privacy.
Is the owner of the "referenced comments" known in all of these cases? I know I saw Anonymous Coward on the list once. Does this person have to be notified, and if so, must
That DMCA is one great law!
-L
Until I can frag a friend via the IR, I do not want anything to do with it.
-L
Hmm, I find myself in a conspicuous minority here. I neither hate Red Hat nor think they are making a good move by investing in Open Source development.
The whole point about Red Hat is packaging, and I do not mean the graphics on the pretty box. They take some enigmatic element of Linux (e.g. install, adding packages, etc.) and make it usable and accessible to a strata of people who probably otherwise would not use Linux. They cater to the demand side - people want a stable OS without much hassle, and they deliver.
I wish they would look at Open Source from the demand side too. There are solutions to a great many problems already in existence out there, needing only the proper PR and "packaging" to bring them into wider use. If Red Hat devoted their money and energy to the packaging and promotion of existing technologies, it would be money and effort better spent in the cause of proliferating what most of us believe is a better way. It would most likely feed back to their greater concern now that they are public - their bottom line.
-L
Here come some new top-level domains from the AOL/NSI alliance:
.aol = arrogant online litigants .bs = business systems .fu = federal use
-L
The new rule of viruses in the Microsoft world:
"Be careful what you WSH for, everyone may get it!"
-L
Agreed that paper is still the most useful form of storage if done right (acid free, well stored, etc.), but the digitalized form does address two major issues:
:)
(1) accessibility of the data from anywhere;
(2) having an additional archive for redundancy.
Being a history buff myself, I have something of an attachment to good old paper and it's close friend microfiche.
-L
Much like a lot of people on this forum, I do not like what Metallica is doing. They are about the biggest moneymaker out there right now, and cracking down on Napster makes them pretty cheap. But you must admit...
Anyone who goes online believing their privacy intact is fooling themself. The same that goes for corporate email goes for online activity in general. If it is not meticulously guarded with strong encryption, there is no reasonable guarantee of security.
Moreover, Napster is a community, and in order to be one, it's doors must be opened, and yes, to this sort of snooping too as a side effect. You cannot have it both ways. Metallica (I doubt strongly they thought of it) has brilliantly exploited this in order to make their case, something that you must grudgingly respect. You can hate them, but the community has been busted by "the man" for their free ride, and they can be angry about it, but so it goes.
-L
Good point, they are there, but I was referring to the order of the listing. The authors may even claim that there is no value in the apparent order, but even if so, they brainstormed them in that order which makes it significant.
-L
Highways are a curious choice at first glance, but I think (not absolutely positive) that they are commenting on a national highway system such as the U.S. rolled out starting with Ike.
The Roman iter was used for similar purposes such as moving the armies, aiding commerce, and allowing human movement. But the Interstate system organized the roads to geographically balance travel, and to provide uniform systems of maintenance and guidance. It also brought an economy of scale to road-building (just due to volume of construction).
It is probably better to think of highways in this context as a system rather than just warm asphalt pathways.
-L
Actually no, it has been translated both ways. Language is funny that way; an exact translation is not always possible.
-L
Their list seems to favor human comfort and convenience over communication. If Aristotle is correct and "man is a social animal", this ordering is not too keen.
-L
In this game, the object is to get a bunch of irregular objects (which are labeled as Microsoft products) to fit into seamless levels. Of course the pace of the game and the point stakes increasingly rise to match the level of the action. But be careful! If you have tremendous success and end up with complementary products tightly bundled, the game causes the screen to be split into two areas, and you have to make the products fit somehow anyway despite the partition!
-L
Another reply worked this out pretty well on a technical level, but how about the philosophical level?
Microsoft would *never* commit their documents to an industry compliant DTD (or group of DTDs). They have made their place in this industry by de-commoditizing standards, not by promoting them. Look at Java, Visual Basic, etc. And certainly Microsoft has taught their competition to use the same tactics.
Microsoft absolute dominates the office suite sector right now, and to cater to a standard simply does them no good whatsoever.
-L
You got it. This just happens to be a fight that they can compete in (for the moment). Too bad they can't tell how many people used a CDR to burn one of their CDs for a buddy. Too bad they cannot tell how many people produced a cassette of their album for profit. They are just throwing down the gauntlet on a challenge that they cannot win in the long run.
It is really too bad their music is so lousy, or it might be worth pirating.
-L