Many Wii games aren't gimmicky. Warioware is quite fun, and Super Paper Mario is a blast (though it barely uses the Wii's features, and could easily have been a Gamecube game). Zelda is fun, too, but has the same issue (could be--and in fact, is, a GC game, but the added aiming features of the Wii remote are a nice touch). Sonic and the Secret Rings initially feels gimmicky, but with time, the controls seem fairly natural to me.
More games will come. Same for the PS3. Eventually, there will be many games worth playing on both systems. Personally, though, the extra $350 for the PS3 just isn't worth it right now, even though it means that I won't get to play Final Fantasy 13.
Games developed for consoles are very tightly tied to the underlying hardware. This allows them to get better performance because you don't have a full blown OS doing hardware abstraction. At best, such a change to the hardware like this would result in an unacceptable loss of performance in a game, and at worst, might prevent the game from working at all This would be true if there were any games which pushed the console to its limits right now. I doubt there are any--you normally don't see these types of games early in the console's life. Sony could/probably/ get away with slight reductions without too much backlash.
Another issue to consider is that with so few games currently available, the number of affected games will be relatively small in a few years. Publishers won't target the original console, because they need to get maximum exposure for the game. They'll target the reduced console.
If you want to start offering a product or service, and it's going to cost you more to develop that product/service than to buy a company which already offers it, the choice is obvious.
you've violated my privacy to do so I disagree. What privacy have I violated?
In addition to checking e-mail, you could also be spying on me. "Could be" is not the same as "are". There are plenty of examples of actions which may be legal or illegal based upon intent or further action. Gun ownership is a prime example. It's legal to own a gun. It's legal to fire a gun. It's not legal to fire a gun at a person, except under very specific circumstances. Checking e-mail is not illegal. Spying is (without a permit, warrant, etc).
I didn't post a notice saying "Come on in" and you've assumed that my open AP is due to my being neighbourly and not a sign of incompetence on my part. We shouldn't protect people from incompetence using the law. We should either protect them by providing products with sane default security settings, or they should just learn how to use their damned equipment. The damned instructions that come with the wireless routers tell you to turn on security!
But, that's not the case, so as a society we continue to assume incompetence. But that doesn't mean that we have to cater to it.
I suppose if you have no moral problem from taking candy from a baby, then what you're suggesting is totally moral behaviour. Oh come on, are you being serious here? The rest of your argument was relatively well-written and thought out--we just disagree on a few points. But this is ridiculous, and makes me wonder if I'm being trolled, here.
But how do you reconcile this with the web? I have received no explicit invitation to connect to onemorelevel.com, however when I point my browser there, they answer and provide content. Am I trespassing there? It seems obvious that I am not, however the logical extension of your argument is that simply having a webserver on the Internet isn't an implicit invitation to connect to it. I claim that there is.
And that is to say: DHCP packets are as much "offers" and "invitations" as HTTP "cookies" are food. I'm not sure why they picked the term "cookie", but I can make a pretty good guess as to why they picked the term "offer".
Anyway, there should be a reasonable expectation that people will either know how to use their property (wireless routers, cars, ovens) or will pay people to help them use their property. Just because your grandmother doesn't know that she's inviting anyone to connect to her AP, doesn't make it any less true.
I think you may be inferring malicious intent where there may be none.
I frequently have my notebook with me. I don't frequently have my DSL line with me. There's no malicious intent involved if I want to check my e-mail and don't have a connection of my own handy.
A person who uses the neighbor's wifi to hide his activities is one thing. Using it for normal, legal, moral things is quite another.
He/asked/ "Can I come in?" and received an automatic reply of, "Yes."
The doorknob would fit closer to an analogy of, "He assigned his computer an IP and default router and/tried/ to send packets, and they were accepted."
As long as you're bringing up the web, how is this different from making an anonymous, unsolicited request to an HTTP server? I make a request, and the server responds (both HTTP and DHCP). If you don't want me using your connection (HTTP or DHCP) then set your server to not respond to my requests.
You are saying that if you leave your door open, that is an invite? If you don't have a fence around your garden, just anyone can use it? God forbid you leave your car unlocked for a sec while loading/unloading. People will be borrowing it in a sec! What about simply dropping your wallet by accident. Obviously you didn't want it anymore, so I can just take it? These sad analogies are really getting old. When your access point screams, "Hey, look! Here I am!" and then tosses me an IP address, that is an invitation. It's far different from me having to figure out your SSID and IP range, or worse, breaking the encryption.
Having a router which broadcasts SSID and hands out IP addresses is more like having a sign on your door saying, "Come on in! Help yourself to anything in the fridge."
Don't give me the crap about not knowing the difference between a public access point someone created to share his/her connection with anyone passingby and a private wifi connection that just hasn't been locked up to the point it becomes unusuable. Surely you can tell the difference between a private house door and a shop door? Not always, actually. In some small towns, people virtually run businesses out of their homes.
But regardless, the analogy fails. Storefronts look different from homes. All you have to go on with wifi is the SSID string. Unless there's some case law that I don't know about, there is no legal precedent establishing what constitutes your "shop door" (SSID). The front door analogy just does not work.
HOWEVER, wifi is two way communication. This person was NOT just receiving the data they "played too loudly" he was happily sending data back and interacting with the system. This is pretty interesting. Is 'interacting' the line, then? Because your wifi is interfering with my wireless devices when you broadcast it into my house.
Man, I'd just about kill to be able to find a link to this study I read, once.
The jist of it was this: the researchers divided people into two groups and gave each group the same set of songs. Each group was asked to rate the songs on some subjective scale. While the control group only got the list of songs, the experimental group got the list of songs plus an average rating of some kind (I don't remember if the rating was real or just made up numbers) indicating popularity.
The findings? In the experimental group, popular songs were rated significantly more highly than in the control group. The conclusion was that people considered the songs to be of higher quality if they thought that other people considered them of higher quality.
So don't be so quick to think that people can't be persuaded by the crowd. Next time the disc jockey on the local radio station claims that this is the "newest, hottest song from band X", maybe you should wonder if they're hot because people want to hear it, or if they're hot because the RIAA says so. Pretty soon, though, it will just be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it will be hot.
There are hot-headed people who obey the law. These people do not go to the black market to get guns because that's illegal. It's only when they get really riled up that they are likely to break the law by not thinking rationally or letting their emotions control them. It's a 'heat-of-the-moment' thing, and that is the type of person that gun control laws protect against.
It's probably pretty likely that disallowing guns saves more lives than would be saved if people were allowed to carry guns--primarily because this sort of shooting is rare, and situationally, it would require that someone near this shooter had a gun, could safely fire at the attacker, and managed to stop him. Compare that to aggravated disputes on the highway after someone gets cut off, wrecked, etc. There are hundreds of these incidents every day.
As I said, I'm pro-guns, but I would like meaningful restrictions. Perpetrators of violent crime shouldn't legally be allowed to carry guns. If they are found carrying guns, they get sent away, period. Using a gun in the commission of a crime should carry a life-sentence, period. Give us our guns, but make damned sure that if they are used irrationally, that they are not used by that person ever again.
I'm against the war, and I consider shootings like this abhorrent. I cannot, however, figure out how a person could link these situations without referring to either karma (which I don't believe is generally thought to be linked to nations), the deity of your choice (e.g. the people who thought that Katrina was God's judgement over homosexuality), or a direct quote from the killer explaining that his actions are trying to make this point.
Use logic to make your arguments. Don't try to claim that these two awful situations are linked in some way to sway people to your side.
Does "snookering IBM over PC-DOS" mean "implementing hidden API calls to prevent Windows from running on PC-DOS" (exactly the sort of anticompetitive behavior you implied would be bad of Google to do?)
Microsoft QuickC v2.5, a.k.a. Programmer's Workbench and Microsoft C v6.0, modified the program's Program Segment Prefix using undocumented DOS functions, and then checked whether or not the associated value changed in a fixed position within the DOS data segment (also undocumented). [1]
The (once infamous) AARD code, a block of code in Windows 3.1's WIN.COM that was XOR encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated, that used various undocumented DOS structures and functions to determine whether or not Windows really was running on MS-DOS. [1]
Interrupt routines called by Windows to inform MS-DOS that Windows is starting/exiting, information that MS-DOS retained in an IN_WINDOWS flag, in spite of the fact that MS-DOS and Windows were supposed to be two separate products. [1]
I, for one, begrudge Microsoft's 'snookering' of IBM's PC-DOS.
They also used undocumented APIs to make their version of Office out-perform competitors. I'm sure a simple Google search would turn up the relevant facts.
*** I'm generally loathe to cite Wikipedia, however in this case, it's just regurgitating information that's available elsewhere, and it's doing it all in one place. Also, it has citations.
Irrelevant. The stores don't let you return opened media/unless defective/, in which case you get a copy of the same media.
Someone else suggested doing that, then returning the now-sealed version. If they mark your receipt, or otherwise keep track of your returns, this may not work.
Are you kidding? They think that they can make them work because...they work. 99% of people settle, fueling the machine so that it can continue to file suits.
Furthermore, common carriers must register a point of contact for DMCA violation complaints. Even people who do manage to comply with 512 above probably don't do that.
Slashdot Mirror
What magical office software do you use that is apparently 100% bug free?
If Sony has plans like this, they've probably notified the major development houses already.
Besides, it's still pretty early in this console's lifetime. We won't see many games that stretch the console's limits for a few years, yet.
Many Wii games aren't gimmicky. Warioware is quite fun, and Super Paper Mario is a blast (though it barely uses the Wii's features, and could easily have been a Gamecube game). Zelda is fun, too, but has the same issue (could be--and in fact, is, a GC game, but the added aiming features of the Wii remote are a nice touch). Sonic and the Secret Rings initially feels gimmicky, but with time, the controls seem fairly natural to me.
More games will come. Same for the PS3. Eventually, there will be many games worth playing on both systems. Personally, though, the extra $350 for the PS3 just isn't worth it right now, even though it means that I won't get to play Final Fantasy 13.
Another issue to consider is that with so few games currently available, the number of affected games will be relatively small in a few years. Publishers won't target the original console, because they need to get maximum exposure for the game. They'll target the reduced console.
Depends.
If you want to start offering a product or service, and it's going to cost you more to develop that product/service than to buy a company which already offers it, the choice is obvious.
Indeed. I appreciate the conversation and your level-headedness (so often lacking online).
Take care.
Anyway, there should be a reasonable expectation that people will either know how to use their property (wireless routers, cars, ovens) or will pay people to help them use their property. Just because your grandmother doesn't know that she's inviting anyone to connect to her AP, doesn't make it any less true.
I think you may be inferring malicious intent where there may be none.
I frequently have my notebook with me. I don't frequently have my DSL line with me. There's no malicious intent involved if I want to check my e-mail and don't have a connection of my own handy.
A person who uses the neighbor's wifi to hide his activities is one thing. Using it for normal, legal, moral things is quite another.
Your analogy is flawed.
/asked/ "Can I come in?" and received an automatic reply of, "Yes."
/tried/ to send packets, and they were accepted."
He
The doorknob would fit closer to an analogy of, "He assigned his computer an IP and default router and
As long as you're bringing up the web, how is this different from making an anonymous, unsolicited request to an HTTP server? I make a request, and the server responds (both HTTP and DHCP). If you don't want me using your connection (HTTP or DHCP) then set your server to not respond to my requests.
When your access point screams, "Hey, look! Here I am!" and then tosses me an IP address, that is an invitation. It's far different from me having to figure out your SSID and IP range, or worse, breaking the encryption.
Having a router which broadcasts SSID and hands out IP addresses is more like having a sign on your door saying, "Come on in! Help yourself to anything in the fridge." Don't give me the crap about not knowing the difference between a public access point someone created to share his/her connection with anyone passingby and a private wifi connection that just hasn't been locked up to the point it becomes unusuable. Surely you can tell the difference between a private house door and a shop door? Not always, actually. In some small towns, people virtually run businesses out of their homes.
But regardless, the analogy fails. Storefronts look different from homes. All you have to go on with wifi is the SSID string. Unless there's some case law that I don't know about, there is no legal precedent establishing what constitutes your "shop door" (SSID). The front door analogy just does not work. HOWEVER, wifi is two way communication. This person was NOT just receiving the data they "played too loudly" he was happily sending data back and interacting with the system. This is pretty interesting. Is 'interacting' the line, then? Because your wifi is interfering with my wireless devices when you broadcast it into my house.
Much like downloading music illegally deprives the RIAA of money, right? I finally get it! Thanks!
Damn. I guess I should have saved that DHCP lease that your wireless access point gave me.
Yup. Now I'm going to go after my neighbors. Their plants steal the CO2 I emit.
Thank you! I was really hoping someone would either remember more about the study or have better Google-fu than I had and would post the link.
Man, I'd just about kill to be able to find a link to this study I read, once.
The jist of it was this: the researchers divided people into two groups and gave each group the same set of songs. Each group was asked to rate the songs on some subjective scale. While the control group only got the list of songs, the experimental group got the list of songs plus an average rating of some kind (I don't remember if the rating was real or just made up numbers) indicating popularity.
The findings? In the experimental group, popular songs were rated significantly more highly than in the control group. The conclusion was that people considered the songs to be of higher quality if they thought that other people considered them of higher quality.
So don't be so quick to think that people can't be persuaded by the crowd. Next time the disc jockey on the local radio station claims that this is the "newest, hottest song from band X", maybe you should wonder if they're hot because people want to hear it, or if they're hot because the RIAA says so. Pretty soon, though, it will just be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it will be hot.
I am pro-guns, but your argument doesn't work.
There are hot-headed people who obey the law. These people do not go to the black market to get guns because that's illegal. It's only when they get really riled up that they are likely to break the law by not thinking rationally or letting their emotions control them. It's a 'heat-of-the-moment' thing, and that is the type of person that gun control laws protect against.
It's probably pretty likely that disallowing guns saves more lives than would be saved if people were allowed to carry guns--primarily because this sort of shooting is rare, and situationally, it would require that someone near this shooter had a gun, could safely fire at the attacker, and managed to stop him. Compare that to aggravated disputes on the highway after someone gets cut off, wrecked, etc. There are hundreds of these incidents every day.
As I said, I'm pro-guns, but I would like meaningful restrictions. Perpetrators of violent crime shouldn't legally be allowed to carry guns. If they are found carrying guns, they get sent away, period. Using a gun in the commission of a crime should carry a life-sentence, period. Give us our guns, but make damned sure that if they are used irrationally, that they are not used by that person ever again.
I'm against the war, and I consider shootings like this abhorrent. I cannot, however, figure out how a person could link these situations without referring to either karma (which I don't believe is generally thought to be linked to nations), the deity of your choice (e.g. the people who thought that Katrina was God's judgement over homosexuality), or a direct quote from the killer explaining that his actions are trying to make this point.
Use logic to make your arguments. Don't try to claim that these two awful situations are linked in some way to sway people to your side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS***, most notably:
- Microsoft QuickC v2.5, a.k.a. Programmer's Workbench and Microsoft C v6.0, modified the program's Program Segment Prefix using undocumented DOS functions, and then checked whether or not the associated value changed in a fixed position within the DOS data segment (also undocumented). [1]
- The (once infamous) AARD code, a block of code in Windows 3.1's WIN.COM that was XOR encrypted, self-modifying, and deliberately obfuscated, that used various undocumented DOS structures and functions to determine whether or not Windows really was running on MS-DOS. [1]
- Interrupt routines called by Windows to inform MS-DOS that Windows is starting/exiting, information that MS-DOS retained in an IN_WINDOWS flag, in spite of the fact that MS-DOS and Windows were supposed to be two separate products. [1]
I, for one, begrudge Microsoft's 'snookering' of IBM's PC-DOS.They also used undocumented APIs to make their version of Office out-perform competitors. I'm sure a simple Google search would turn up the relevant facts.
*** I'm generally loathe to cite Wikipedia, however in this case, it's just regurgitating information that's available elsewhere, and it's doing it all in one place. Also, it has citations.
Irrelevant. The stores don't let you return opened media /unless defective/, in which case you get a copy of the same media.
Someone else suggested doing that, then returning the now-sealed version. If they mark your receipt, or otherwise keep track of your returns, this may not work.
Where did you buy it that they let you return it after it was opened?
That's an issue with the legal system. I was addressing the issue of incompetence with the people checking the logs.
Are you kidding? They think that they can make them work because...they work. 99% of people settle, fueling the machine so that it can continue to file suits.
Furthermore, common carriers must register a point of contact for DMCA violation complaints. Even people who do manage to comply with 512 above probably don't do that.