This just in, kids cry and fuss and demand Happy Meals. Parents say that McDonald's is a bad idea but wanting peace and quiet give in and propose a trip to "The Golden Arches" restaurant.
As someone who is unfamiliar with this part of the industry, I appreciate the articles and the clarity it brings to the different issues, including Google's probable interest in ITA Software. With that said, I find the conclusion - that Google is primarily interested in offering personalized ticket prices - is, while at least somewhat plausible and certainly disturbing, pretty unlikely. First, there's the whole thing about how that's illegal (though granted, few in the justice department would be able to decipher the technical aspects and come to that conclusion), and second, while Google is getting its hands into everything, I (at least) have yet to see a situation where it's doing it in an actively malicious way that does not benefit the consumer. Search? Makes $, but provides good service. Gmail? Increases market share, but again provides good service. Android certainly has increased competition and innovation in the mobile arena, say what you want about the fragmenting of the platform. Even the Nexus 1 at least tried to do good things with unlocked phones and service competition, despite its hardware and software flaws, and its use of 2.1 probably accelerated the development of current phones like the latest Droid devices. I find it hard to believe that Google would try to actively and maliciously take advantage of consumers in the process of making a buck better than an existing company makes a buck. Is there $ in it for Google? No doubt, but I also don't doubt that there will be a reason for consumers to use the service-there almost has to be, because anything less would hurt Google's reputation, and that would be far more damaging than the failure of almost any possible product they could put out there.
Well... $30 for basic (abc, cbs, fox) $20 for standard (espn, cnn) $30 for premium (youtube, hulu) $10 for tech bundle (slashdot, Digg) $10 for education bundle (anything ending in.edu) $10 per company for gaming (Blizzard, Activision, EA; say goodbye to anything smaller than Rock*) or $100 for the bundle $100 for some sanitized and obviously useless branded P2P client $20 bucks for their version of Google (which just forwards your query to Google and presents the results in a branded window)
Oh, and depending on where you live your ISP may not be able to offer access to some websites due to local rates of use/interest making them less profitable.
You're right, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is the first time the adult industry didn't decide the next technology format. Of course, they adapted, you can still buy porn on Blu-Ray. The more interesting thing that the adult industry IS deciding is the NEXT format, which is less a format and more a content delivery device, i.e. internet streaming vs. physical device. The reason why the industry is in such financial crisis right now is the plurality of free streaming content. Even if they manage to control that outlet, the majority of their audience will probably never buy physical content again; the market has spoken on how the public likes to have video delivered. This is reflected in sites like Hulu and the various streaming services individual networks make available. DVD/Blu-Ray/etc sales will continue to fall, and eventually the entertainment industry as a whole finds a way to make video on demand as easy to use as the tv (cable services VOD aren't bad but aren't great).
Short version-porn industry has spoken, and streaming video is the next big thing; the first company to do it right will win.
Are you a climate scientist? Or in a related field? If not, then why do we care if YOU specifically verify the science? I'm not saying your process is bad - the data should be published and verified by other climate scientists - but the simple point is that science is hard, which is why we have experts.
I don't ask Steven Hawking to validate Queueing Theory (though I'm sure he could do it), I ask the PhDs who have worked in the field for 20 years. Similarly, you may in fact be a Nobel prize winning Mathematician, but that doesn't mean that something isn't scientifically sound if you can't understand the data and verify the conclusions.
What the report seems to reflect is what happens in every other scientific field-people being dicks to each other to lay claim to being the alpha dog. As we all know, being smart and being egotistical are not two mutually exclusive conditions. The fact that evidence of this behavior has popped up does not invalidate the field; in fact, you could argue that it strengthens it, because it models behavior in established fields.
The point - don't discredit scientific consensus just because you haven't verified it. If you want to discredit it, do the work, become an expert, and prove it.
...and thus destroy society. The end of the world is coming, thanks to violence in video games, just as it came thanks to rap, heavy metal, rock & roll, various forms of art, movies, tv, radio, and virtually any technological innovation over the past 100 years. I bet that when people first figured out how to make bronze they were like "the world is ending, things made of bronze will completely replace everything made of copper, the copper industry will go out of business, people will lose their jobs and starve, and society will be destroyed." (Or something like that, you get the point.)
You know, I don't have any problem with saying that violent video games desensitize people (not just kids) to violence and that may have (some) social impact. In the same way that Jackie Chan movies glorify martial arts and Rage Against the Machine songs can incite anger and discontent. What I (primarily) object to is a complete lack of understanding of the scale and context of the impact. If there was reasoned discourse in this country, I would expect that people would say "well, how Much impact does a particular type of simulation have?" and the result of such discussions would result in some manner of reasoned rating system which, oh wait, we have (the VALUE of said rating system notwithstanding, especially in places like Australia). But despite the at least reasonable attempt at a rating system, which makes sense, we do NOT have reasoned discourse in this country, and the result of this (and every single study, "study", and outright rant before and after it) is OH MY GOD SAVE THE CHILDRENS.
As a result, the world we live in, at least in the mainstream media, promotes that if your child plays video games, he/she/other will become a serial killer. Period, end of sentence. And we don't want that. What we want is for our children to grow up into responsible, socially conscious adults, who would never hurt anyone else, and would, for example, donate millions of dollars for buying toys for sick children on a yearly basis (http://www.childsplaycharity.org/) or disgrace and disbar bombastic lawyers who make fantastic claims without evidence and violate court orders and judicial procedures to back up the false claims (http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred). That sounds like a reasonable thing to want from our current (and future) generations.
Now, again, I don't disagree that someone who had played through the latest Doom/Quake/Unreal/Modern Warfare clone is going to have some differences in they way they perceive violence vs someone who never consumed ANY VIOLENT MEDIA EVER (also known as an embryo), and I also admit that this particular article does not seem to want to raise the panic flag so much as say "there is some impact, how much we can't exactly calculate, but we should account for it in some way". And I think most people on this site will agree with that statement-the problem is agreeing with what should be done. (My impression is that) most people who have been exposed to significant amounts of video games believe that control should be imposed on the parental level. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but what I do know is this-if we were to have reasoned discourse on this, things would be better. Unfortunately, that's really unrealistic these days.
Please note: apparently my./-fu is not strong, there should be a "less than" between each *_votes variable and 60, which didn't show up due to some formatting thing.
I think a key difference here is in music sampling, you generally take a beat or a riff or something and then do something with it to make it your own. Your average sampled song these days is not just clips of different songs strung together, it tends to be different components of different songs combined together in some (relatively) new way. Whereas it isn't like you can sample the "beat" of a book, fiction or non-fiction. What she did is like splicing 3 songs together without modifying them at all; that, I'm sure, wouldn't be considering sampling, more ripping off. So at first blush no, not really cool.
With that said, all literature borrows, more or less, from things that came before - various insights, ideas, subplots, writing styles, etc. The fact that this girl recombined existing pieces of literature to create something more or less new is, abstractly at least, close to how any book is written. The difference is that she was just more blatant about it. I don't think we can deny the fact that recombination of existing work (direct or indirect) is a common (if not dominant) method for creating new art-of any medium-these days, and as long as she only claims credit for the recombination, not the source material, then I can't really fault her or the method. You can knock her for not being creative and original, but that's like complaining a clip show (see:VH1) isn't creative or original. It's not, but it's entertaining, it can be commercially viable, and the combination does tend to bring to light ideas that might not have been obvious prior to composing the elements.
Regardless, the key point is if she (or anyone like her) claims credit for the original elements. If so, that's not cool. If not, then it's nothing new and I don't particularly care.
Now look, I understand that Square Enix republishing games for new platforms is both financially savvy and also a boon for those of us that may have lost our old games, but really? FF1 has been published for no less than 3 platforms already (NES, GBA, PS-nevermind emulators), and I still have copies 2 of them (NES and GBA, though to be fair the GBA version was to get the first official US version of FF2).
I have nothing against exploiting existing intellectual property if it'll make you money, especially when it'll make people happy, but you'd think-at least on a place like slashdot-that there would be a significant percentage of people that boxes up their old games the same way "normal" people box up old pictures and such (like me). If you do that, and you have the urge, then you don't have to pay for the new version. Of course, then you have cases like Chrono Trigger for the DS which has a new ending; of course you have to give in then. (That said, I still have my original SNES CT cartridge in my closet.)
Lots of responses here, probably many more intelligent than mine, so let me try to sum up. Here are the things that matter in this equation: 1. Job Satisfaction (clearly you expect to have this decline if you take the job) 2. Job Security (clearly you expect to have this decline if you DON'T take the job) 3. Job Performance (it sounds like you expect this to decline if you take the job) 4. Money (given the economy, this may or may not change if you take the job) 5. Experience (clearly if you take a new job you'll get more job experience than if you tried to stay in the same role)
Lots of things to think about here. Obviously, if job satisfaction is most important, then you know what to do. However, if job security is the most important, then you again know what to do. Etc etc. However, the point is this is a short-term view. In order to make the right choice for yourself, you probably have to take the long-term view.
Is it worth it to take the management job and push paper for a few years, hopefully bridging you through the bad economy, getting you experience in management so that you are more hire-able later on, potentially leading to more money, a better job, and increased job satisfaction? You could certainly make that argument. But if you go that route you have to maintain the long-term view and keep in mind that you are essentially interning as management to increase prospects later on, keep yourself abreast of the latest technology on your own time, and most importantly, when later on becomes now, ACT on that.
You could also make the argument that if the technical role is extremely important to you, then you need to stick to it so that you don't unintentionally transition into a job you're going to hate. I would argue that working a job you hate is only marginally better than not having a job at all.
I worked at a place that had 2 "tracks"-management and technical, and you picked one and advanced along that track. That's the best of both worlds I suppose; it's worth being aware of that sort of arrangement when finding a job if job satisfaction is high on your list.
I disagree that the web will evolve into some sort of 3D Virtual World. I do agree that 3D Virtual Worlds will continue to be prevalent and offer new and fresh experiences, such as for entertainment, education, experimentation, or even as a method for permanently disabled people to enjoy a fully realized existence (i.e. the matrix).
However, that is *all* that they will be, for one single reason-convenience. The web is convenient. Real life is Not. Virtual worlds, as they move towards more and more realistic scenarios, by their very nature replace the convenience of (semi) immediate response engendered by traditional web browsers with the non-convenience of the real world, where you have to *go* somewhere to *get* something.
I'm reminded of a post by the penny arcade guys where they reviewed the playstation home service (see http://www.penny-arcade.com/2008/12/12/). Hilarity aside, resources are limited in the real world, because things take up space. Therefore there cannot be an unlimited amount of them in a single location. Therefore by definition any "3D Virtual World" which provides as much correlation to the real world as something as simple as World of Warcraft *cannot* have the convenience provided by the current incarnation of the web browser.
This is not to say that virtual reality will not happen, or that when it happens it will not be big. For all I know we might all decide to plug ourselves in matrix-style. Certainly the first company to figure out the sex angle at a more than pathetic level will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. However, what I am saying is that virtual worlds will continue being what they are-a tool for some purpose, be it entertainment or whatever-while what we consider the "web" will continue to exist in some "pure" (though evolved) form because of it's ability to offer the immediacy of information transfer, which is, ultimately, the thing we most value about it.
Slashdot Mirror
This just in, kids cry and fuss and demand Happy Meals. Parents say that McDonald's is a bad idea but wanting peace and quiet give in and propose a trip to "The Golden Arches" restaurant.
Unless they live in San Francisco, of course.
Where's the survey of Daily Show/Colbert Report viewers? I doubt we score much better than MSNBC on politics but our marks on puns are sky high.
As someone who is unfamiliar with this part of the industry, I appreciate the articles and the clarity it brings to the different issues, including Google's probable interest in ITA Software. With that said, I find the conclusion - that Google is primarily interested in offering personalized ticket prices - is, while at least somewhat plausible and certainly disturbing, pretty unlikely. First, there's the whole thing about how that's illegal (though granted, few in the justice department would be able to decipher the technical aspects and come to that conclusion), and second, while Google is getting its hands into everything, I (at least) have yet to see a situation where it's doing it in an actively malicious way that does not benefit the consumer. Search? Makes $, but provides good service. Gmail? Increases market share, but again provides good service. Android certainly has increased competition and innovation in the mobile arena, say what you want about the fragmenting of the platform. Even the Nexus 1 at least tried to do good things with unlocked phones and service competition, despite its hardware and software flaws, and its use of 2.1 probably accelerated the development of current phones like the latest Droid devices. I find it hard to believe that Google would try to actively and maliciously take advantage of consumers in the process of making a buck better than an existing company makes a buck. Is there $ in it for Google? No doubt, but I also don't doubt that there will be a reason for consumers to use the service-there almost has to be, because anything less would hurt Google's reputation, and that would be far more damaging than the failure of almost any possible product they could put out there.
Well... .edu)
$30 for basic (abc, cbs, fox)
$20 for standard (espn, cnn)
$30 for premium (youtube, hulu)
$10 for tech bundle (slashdot, Digg)
$10 for education bundle (anything ending in
$10 per company for gaming (Blizzard, Activision, EA; say goodbye to anything smaller than Rock*) or $100 for the bundle
$100 for some sanitized and obviously useless branded P2P client
$20 bucks for their version of Google (which just forwards your query to Google and presents the results in a branded window)
Oh, and depending on where you live your ISP may not be able to offer access to some websites due to local rates of use/interest making them less profitable.
You're right, HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is the first time the adult industry didn't decide the next technology format. Of course, they adapted, you can still buy porn on Blu-Ray. The more interesting thing that the adult industry IS deciding is the NEXT format, which is less a format and more a content delivery device, i.e. internet streaming vs. physical device. The reason why the industry is in such financial crisis right now is the plurality of free streaming content. Even if they manage to control that outlet, the majority of their audience will probably never buy physical content again; the market has spoken on how the public likes to have video delivered. This is reflected in sites like Hulu and the various streaming services individual networks make available. DVD/Blu-Ray/etc sales will continue to fall, and eventually the entertainment industry as a whole finds a way to make video on demand as easy to use as the tv (cable services VOD aren't bad but aren't great).
Short version-porn industry has spoken, and streaming video is the next big thing; the first company to do it right will win.
Are you a climate scientist? Or in a related field? If not, then why do we care if YOU specifically verify the science? I'm not saying your process is bad - the data should be published and verified by other climate scientists - but the simple point is that science is hard, which is why we have experts.
I don't ask Steven Hawking to validate Queueing Theory (though I'm sure he could do it), I ask the PhDs who have worked in the field for 20 years. Similarly, you may in fact be a Nobel prize winning Mathematician, but that doesn't mean that something isn't scientifically sound if you can't understand the data and verify the conclusions.
What the report seems to reflect is what happens in every other scientific field-people being dicks to each other to lay claim to being the alpha dog. As we all know, being smart and being egotistical are not two mutually exclusive conditions. The fact that evidence of this behavior has popped up does not invalidate the field; in fact, you could argue that it strengthens it, because it models behavior in established fields.
The point - don't discredit scientific consensus just because you haven't verified it. If you want to discredit it, do the work, become an expert, and prove it.
...and thus destroy society. The end of the world is coming, thanks to violence in video games, just as it came thanks to rap, heavy metal, rock & roll, various forms of art, movies, tv, radio, and virtually any technological innovation over the past 100 years. I bet that when people first figured out how to make bronze they were like "the world is ending, things made of bronze will completely replace everything made of copper, the copper industry will go out of business, people will lose their jobs and starve, and society will be destroyed." (Or something like that, you get the point.)
You know, I don't have any problem with saying that violent video games desensitize people (not just kids) to violence and that may have (some) social impact. In the same way that Jackie Chan movies glorify martial arts and Rage Against the Machine songs can incite anger and discontent. What I (primarily) object to is a complete lack of understanding of the scale and context of the impact. If there was reasoned discourse in this country, I would expect that people would say "well, how Much impact does a particular type of simulation have?" and the result of such discussions would result in some manner of reasoned rating system which, oh wait, we have (the VALUE of said rating system notwithstanding, especially in places like Australia). But despite the at least reasonable attempt at a rating system, which makes sense, we do NOT have reasoned discourse in this country, and the result of this (and every single study, "study", and outright rant before and after it) is OH MY GOD SAVE THE CHILDRENS.
As a result, the world we live in, at least in the mainstream media, promotes that if your child plays video games, he/she/other will become a serial killer. Period, end of sentence. And we don't want that. What we want is for our children to grow up into responsible, socially conscious adults, who would never hurt anyone else, and would, for example, donate millions of dollars for buying toys for sick children on a yearly basis (http://www.childsplaycharity.org/) or disgrace and disbar bombastic lawyers who make fantastic claims without evidence and violate court orders and judicial procedures to back up the false claims (http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred). That sounds like a reasonable thing to want from our current (and future) generations.
Now, again, I don't disagree that someone who had played through the latest Doom/Quake/Unreal/Modern Warfare clone is going to have some differences in they way they perceive violence vs someone who never consumed ANY VIOLENT MEDIA EVER (also known as an embryo), and I also admit that this particular article does not seem to want to raise the panic flag so much as say "there is some impact, how much we can't exactly calculate, but we should account for it in some way". And I think most people on this site will agree with that statement-the problem is agreeing with what should be done. (My impression is that) most people who have been exposed to significant amounts of video games believe that control should be imposed on the parental level. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but what I do know is this-if we were to have reasoned discourse on this, things would be better. Unfortunately, that's really unrealistic these days.
Please note: apparently my ./-fu is not strong, there should be a "less than" between each *_votes variable and 60, which didn't show up due to some formatting thing.
...open source the government. Seriously, how hard is it to write:
Legislation
If (party1_votes 60) && (party2_votes 60)
GOTO Gridlock
Gridlock
GOTO Legislation
I think I may have just automated congress.
I think a key difference here is in music sampling, you generally take a beat or a riff or something and then do something with it to make it your own. Your average sampled song these days is not just clips of different songs strung together, it tends to be different components of different songs combined together in some (relatively) new way. Whereas it isn't like you can sample the "beat" of a book, fiction or non-fiction. What she did is like splicing 3 songs together without modifying them at all; that, I'm sure, wouldn't be considering sampling, more ripping off. So at first blush no, not really cool.
With that said, all literature borrows, more or less, from things that came before - various insights, ideas, subplots, writing styles, etc. The fact that this girl recombined existing pieces of literature to create something more or less new is, abstractly at least, close to how any book is written. The difference is that she was just more blatant about it. I don't think we can deny the fact that recombination of existing work (direct or indirect) is a common (if not dominant) method for creating new art-of any medium-these days, and as long as she only claims credit for the recombination, not the source material, then I can't really fault her or the method. You can knock her for not being creative and original, but that's like complaining a clip show (see:VH1) isn't creative or original. It's not, but it's entertaining, it can be commercially viable, and the combination does tend to bring to light ideas that might not have been obvious prior to composing the elements.
Regardless, the key point is if she (or anyone like her) claims credit for the original elements. If so, that's not cool. If not, then it's nothing new and I don't particularly care.
Now look, I understand that Square Enix republishing games for new platforms is both financially savvy and also a boon for those of us that may have lost our old games, but really? FF1 has been published for no less than 3 platforms already (NES, GBA, PS-nevermind emulators), and I still have copies 2 of them (NES and GBA, though to be fair the GBA version was to get the first official US version of FF2).
I have nothing against exploiting existing intellectual property if it'll make you money, especially when it'll make people happy, but you'd think-at least on a place like slashdot-that there would be a significant percentage of people that boxes up their old games the same way "normal" people box up old pictures and such (like me). If you do that, and you have the urge, then you don't have to pay for the new version. Of course, then you have cases like Chrono Trigger for the DS which has a new ending; of course you have to give in then. (That said, I still have my original SNES CT cartridge in my closet.)
Lots of responses here, probably many more intelligent than mine, so let me try to sum up. Here are the things that matter in this equation:
1. Job Satisfaction (clearly you expect to have this decline if you take the job)
2. Job Security (clearly you expect to have this decline if you DON'T take the job)
3. Job Performance (it sounds like you expect this to decline if you take the job)
4. Money (given the economy, this may or may not change if you take the job)
5. Experience (clearly if you take a new job you'll get more job experience than if you tried to stay in the same role)
Lots of things to think about here. Obviously, if job satisfaction is most important, then you know what to do. However, if job security is the most important, then you again know what to do. Etc etc. However, the point is this is a short-term view. In order to make the right choice for yourself, you probably have to take the long-term view.
Is it worth it to take the management job and push paper for a few years, hopefully bridging you through the bad economy, getting you experience in management so that you are more hire-able later on, potentially leading to more money, a better job, and increased job satisfaction? You could certainly make that argument. But if you go that route you have to maintain the long-term view and keep in mind that you are essentially interning as management to increase prospects later on, keep yourself abreast of the latest technology on your own time, and most importantly, when later on becomes now, ACT on that.
You could also make the argument that if the technical role is extremely important to you, then you need to stick to it so that you don't unintentionally transition into a job you're going to hate. I would argue that working a job you hate is only marginally better than not having a job at all.
I worked at a place that had 2 "tracks"-management and technical, and you picked one and advanced along that track. That's the best of both worlds I suppose; it's worth being aware of that sort of arrangement when finding a job if job satisfaction is high on your list.
I disagree that the web will evolve into some sort of 3D Virtual World. I do agree that 3D Virtual Worlds will continue to be prevalent and offer new and fresh experiences, such as for entertainment, education, experimentation, or even as a method for permanently disabled people to enjoy a fully realized existence (i.e. the matrix). However, that is *all* that they will be, for one single reason-convenience. The web is convenient. Real life is Not. Virtual worlds, as they move towards more and more realistic scenarios, by their very nature replace the convenience of (semi) immediate response engendered by traditional web browsers with the non-convenience of the real world, where you have to *go* somewhere to *get* something. I'm reminded of a post by the penny arcade guys where they reviewed the playstation home service (see http://www.penny-arcade.com/2008/12/12/). Hilarity aside, resources are limited in the real world, because things take up space. Therefore there cannot be an unlimited amount of them in a single location. Therefore by definition any "3D Virtual World" which provides as much correlation to the real world as something as simple as World of Warcraft *cannot* have the convenience provided by the current incarnation of the web browser. This is not to say that virtual reality will not happen, or that when it happens it will not be big. For all I know we might all decide to plug ourselves in matrix-style. Certainly the first company to figure out the sex angle at a more than pathetic level will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. However, what I am saying is that virtual worlds will continue being what they are-a tool for some purpose, be it entertainment or whatever-while what we consider the "web" will continue to exist in some "pure" (though evolved) form because of it's ability to offer the immediacy of information transfer, which is, ultimately, the thing we most value about it.