most pages out there aren't worth a penny.
web content needs to stick to the 'free' [as in beer] model of broadcast tv. certain sites (much like cable tv) may be able to sell access - but only because of the quality of their content. we shouldn't all just accept 'penny per page' as the standard. the standard should be 'free'. the exception should be micropayments.
in a world where your competition doesn't have to charge -you- money (getting theirs from advertisers), pay sites are going to have a hard time convincing people that:
1. the content is worth the money.
2. they aren't unnecessarily splitting the page up to increase 'hits' (and thereby payments)
3. it's worth having your personal and billing information in some central location to facilitate a 'transparent' experience.
people are vocally worried about all the potential abuses of MS collecting user information in a central location. but to pull this off, you not only have to do that same thing - but through some intermediary or council.
and we all know how fair, impartial and just all the government sponsored net cos have been thus far.
*cough*RAND*cough*new TLDs*cough*
It's for the costs of access to their prebuilt -services-. If you have the skill to write and support your own shopping cart, you don't shell out $1000.
I mean, the price bar was set by Verisign. They'll charge you $1400 a year for a certificate and 'payment services' (cybercash).
If you snub Verisign and hit up Thawte ($125) for your certificate, and MS for your 'payment services' ($1000) it looks like you're -saving- $375 to me. And that's if MS.Net services -don't- include CA. (which would be a shameful oversight)
Is everyone so terrified of writing their own web calendar that they feel 'robbed' by 'having' to buy.Net services from MS?
But I suppose writing a well-thought article/post that points out that MS is -saving- you money (albeit a slight bit), or even just releasing their services at the already established going rate, just doesn't get the hits.
I can't honestly believe that microsoft 'hid' the file types dialog box for some evil purpose. they're quite frankly: pretty bad at intuitive interfaces. i mean, c'mon. if they could make a good interface, they would. it sells better. it'd be an improvement, and they can sell improvements.
and most media programs now (real and winamp included) have code to check the program associated with the media they deal with, and incessently remind you that they can usurp control of those files if you just click 'ok'.
i can't honestly believe that microsoft is going to forge a monopoly through file association. hell, i thought reading the/. heading that there'd be a rational article behind that link that looked into the ways that companies try to thrust their proprietary file -formats- onto the world, and squeeze developers later on. (a la Compuserve/Gif, and the concepts behind RAND)
it's easy to hate the winner, to call them a cheater. much easier than admitting that they're better; that they did the work and deserve it.
if corporate reorganizing has shown anything - it's the value of contract workers.
contractors don't care much for corporate loyalty or security, as canceled contracts have termination clauses that are agreed upon at the outset by both parties.
i think what we'll see as the information age settles into an optimal pattern is that contracting firms will grow increasingly popular to large corporations. these firms will encapsulate a group of people who work well together with perhaps specialties.
this may facilitate a greater focus on tech workers and their abilities, but i doubt to the programmers-as-rock-stars hype level that the bubble promised.
of course contractors undoubtedly charge more than a corporation would pay for direct work. but the value of the corporations has always been their assets, their management, their (intellectual) property, and their brands. they succeed regardless of individual workers within them. they can hire a dozen contracting teams to work on a dozen products this year, and next year they don't have to worry about what to assign them to. their production can expand and contract much more naturally with the market. and these contractions will have less effect.
employees i believe will tend more toward these shops. a small contract group has more loyalty to workers, is by definition a flatter organization, and much more closely tied to employees.
granted this theory applies to large corporations - the nortels, the big three, the boeings, et al. small flexible mobile companies will grow and die as they always have. dependant on the drive, timliness, and accuracy of their team, vision, and product.
when in a recent interview this guy says his only mistake with ultima online was not charging enough?
perhaps thats just because the pricing was the only thing garriott himself was involved in regarding the game.
i'm excited as a gamer when new, interesting, and fun games come out. not when great game designer falls from creating one of the greatest rpgs ever (ultima4) to not even publicly recognizing the bad decision making regarding the launch and execution of the 2 most recent influential games (u9, uo) to hold his name.
that's such a ridiculous convetion. I'd like to mod down this article for even mentioning it.
Did anyone ever think that we didn't sign it - not because restricting pollution is a bad idea - but because the protocols themselves aren't very good at what they do?
would you rather be the industrialized nation that approved the wholesale sale of pollution rights in third world countries?
that's right. the kyoto protocol exempts developing nations from pollution restrictions. If you were worried about the way we exploit the third world now, think about the ramifications of allowing a developing government to -sell- the rights to pollute in the very areas that thus far have been protected from pollution through their lack of industrialization.
And who exactly -has- ratified or acceeded to the kyoto protocol?
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/kpstats.pdf
A sizeable list of developing and third world countries has acceeded to be sure, but -missing- more prominantly alongside the US is:
Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and many others.
So do think maybe it's a matter of propaganda and presentation that there was a 'bonfire' set by our declination of Kyoto?
Sure, the rest of the world tends to hate america - but lets at least look at facts before we accept the sensationalism presented on TV.
how different is microsoft bolting features onto windows different from how General Motors bolts features into cars?
Does it bother anyone that a stock GM car comes only with a Delco radio? Is this really so different? Does it bother anyone that Ford trucks ship with Firestone tires?
There's still a thriving aftermarket for car stereos, tires, fuzzy dice, upholstery, struts, shocks, engine mods, etc.
Why get upset when microsoft bolts a rudimentary IM client into windows? Why worry? Is it that Microsoft is unfortunately one of the better software developers, and people are terrified of competing against the team that always wins?
If you can't convince someone that your tires or shocks are better than stock - then you don't make a sale. Why should it be any different for a streaming video package?
Should the Big Three ship without windshields just so the little guys in the business get a crack at the market?
Maybe those companies saw what microsoft sees: if you ship a fully featured product that meets all of a user's needs adequately out of the gate; you'll get more business than if you left important pieces of the experience out.
Our parents don't want to go online to download ICQ or Winamp. They'd be lucky if they even knew what the leading packages were for any given media/internet feature. They are Microsoft's market. If microsoft didn't include functionality that allowed them to see pictures of, or see video of, or have an IM chat with, their grandchildren - then they'd start to percieve microsoft's offering as somewhat broken - just as any of us would perceive a car sold without tires.
The -only- way to stop microsoft (if you don't like it, hate it, fear it) is to vote with your feet. Don't buy it. Don't try to convert microsoft users (they already bought theirs) - Educate people getting ready to buy a new system. Throw together and host a download of your favorite *nix flavor that has a better feature set. Support that download and it's users. Educate clients (if you're a tech) about microsoft alternatives: their lower cost of ownership and their (at least) comparable performance and superior flexibility.
but don't whine and bitch online because Microsoft is winning.
i dunno. looking at suck and looking at salon, i don't think either changed their design even once. and if they did - i sure hope they didn't pay too much for it. but with the traffic those sites generated, and the *ahem* qualifications of most e-zine authors, i'd really hope their monthly bandwidth bill exceeded their content costs.
but in any case, whenever your cost (whatever it is really) is greater than your revenue (wherever it comes from) it's bad business. that simple. it'll fail regardless of it's quality, it's genre, or whether it's a corporate backed attempt or a startup.
I think perhaps i'm missing the economic point of the article though. Where is the fear that power is consolidating? Is it because salon is going, and suck and feed are gone? I mean, those were boutique pubs at best. Is journalism threatened because Suck can't make money?
It's still cheaper to start a (pardon the expression) ebusiness than any other kind. Can one deny the web is still the most viable way of allowing a diversity of players? where's the danger to competition?
Failure is part of it, but just because some startups failed doesn't mean that the Harrison Beurgeron (sp?) corporations are moving in. It just means -that- experiment failed. the next have to try harder.
Are we going to fault everyone else besides ourselves for the decline in Net content? I mean, if a business' revenue is not sufficient to cover its costs (bandwidth mostly) - isn't that just a bad business? Does it matter what the content is? or who's backing it?
Is it really indicative of a state of our 'new' economy? If we can't produce content that people are willing to pay subscription fees for, or generate the audiences that advertisers are willing to pay to advertise too - then how exactly is that the fault of the conglomerates?
Perhaps Feed and Suck were too niche. Perhaps Salon just isn't all that great. Can you deny that they'd never have gotten half their time in the sun in paper and ink?
The Net has lowered the barrier of entry into the world economy - but it's even more ruthless on bad business. You can't succeed just because there's no competition in your area. All competition is everywhere. You have to provide the content that creates an audience that you can sell.
Demonizing the big businesses because a site 'suck'd and died is really quite childish.
online magazines are a business like any other. As an added advantage - the costs for an ezine roughly equate to exactly as many issues being printed as needed - so even if msnbc and cnn ate their audience - if they had decent content and a revenue stream then they'd be able to cover and cultivate the audience they kept.
who knows, in 5 years maybe we'll see that there is -no- market for content like salon, slate, or suck online. Perhaps their light-minded drivel is best suited for dead-tree editions you pick up for the flight and discard.
You can't blame the conglomerates for everything. The audience spoke and killed those zines. If people find content worth it - they'll pay. Perhaps when all the other zines dry up - and there's no other place to turn online to waste some time - a quality subscription site will spring up and flourish.
gee. as long as macrovision is doing it there's no reason to worry.
you guys do realize how weak SafeDisc is for PC CD-ROM game protection right? and if SafeAudio has to be compatible with all audio readers produced after a certain point in time - then they can't even change the encryption. just hold onto your old cd players and wait for gamecopyworld to post a link to SafeAudio automated cracking.
and just where does macrovision get its 'billions of dollars' estimates? it's like the same marketoid bullet point quote under all of their products. gotta love unqualified marketing crap.
the real question is - is this really what's going to bring start-ups into michigan?
are the courts really such a barrier to startups?
or is it the fact that land value anywhere outside of bloody detroit (literally) tends to be much higher than 'middle of nowhere' desert land - and the fact that there isn't much industry to piggy back off and steal people from out here except the big 3 automakers.
and it's cold as fuck.
but i guess, detroit just legalized gambling - so it makes sense that startups should follow.
saying this as a michigan resident working for an internet startup =p
And that's what/. is for. We know they aren't going to advertise these things, but geeks work for the big companies somewhere along the lines, and so we can share knowledge here. I'm fine with/. as a location for swapping knowledge and organization... i'm just saying that a gross majority of/. just spouts off the same philosophical rants each and every time these same issues come up (IP, copyright, patents, content-protection, et al)
And once/. is aware of these limitations we can exponentially increase awareness among the consumers. College students, technically-minded professionals, and hardcore geeks -are- the target demographics for 99% of these technologies (someone has to buy the $6000 digital vhs packages long before it trickles down to the consumer)
The thrust of my point is - we've heard the philosophical arguments before. more times than we'd care to i'd imagine. so why don't we, as a giant technology demographic, do something about it?
Firewire has content protection? fair enough. i wasn't too impressed with the technology anyway (convince me that your data transfer tech is the greatest thing since sliced bread by speed limiting the first two revisions to a fraction of their potential?) now i have one more reason to not buy it; One more consideration to weigh heavily against any benefits it provides.
From reading your comment, I understand that you are precisely not the type of slashdotter i referenced in my post.
you understand the power the consumer has over corporations. the power of voting with your feet. as you did over Kosmo. As just about everyone would if ICQ changed their terms of service to something unbearable, or added a cost.
My point was directed to these people who are complaining about HDTV being 'crippled' with content protection, and saying that it should be 'open' because 'information wants to be free' and that whole standard line of crap. What they need to do is wake up and realize they -are- the content creators' God (love the quote, do you know the source?)./. argues against itself so often, on issues that almost no-one is arguing -for-. Its totally unproductive for everyone to go off on a rant on 'free content' on/. - it's been done. ad nauseum.
people should use their time and energy to educate one another on technology drawbacks. That they should use/. to organize a petition to those standards committees, and try to explain our positions to those that are going to move forward with Bad Ideas(TM). they should organize themselves... but of course, that takes Work(tm), and these people would rather rail on with the same rants than -do- something.
Bravo to you sir, a consumer who votes with his feet. (and a slashdotter who reads/replies-to non-troll comments) When you see a standard coming that removes freedoms you enjoy - you simply do not purchase any product or service that promotes that standard or business practice. I just wish that/. would look past what Sony or Microsoft is pushing and say, hey? why do i need this new TV Format/Operating System/Server Application again? I'm sure we don't need HDTV so bad that we'll put up with not being able to record X-Files, and watch it on monday night instead. And just like DivX (the CircuitCity/Disney venture, not the good one;) they'll go away or change. If it doesn't - everyone who buys something like that deserves it.
i dont see why content creators shouldn't be able to protect their content. they made it. they made the investment. 99% of the/. knee jerk reaction is the fear of losing the free lunch.
studios made fight club. they didn't make you buy it. they didn't make you watch it. if they release it on the theoretical 'uncrackable' system so that you can't make a copy - they still can't -make- you buy it. even if the new system has a higher quality output. if studios back a standard you don't like, then vote with your dollar and take it somewhere else. It's the only thing they can and should react to.
believe it or not, studios do a valuable service. they sort through crap and take risks. they make 'safe' movies because it's exactly what audiences demand. did you guys ever notice that the pop culture obsession with fight club's philosophy is cruelly ironic considering the lifestyle of its fans?
If they put content on a medium or system that you don't approve of. just shut up and don't buy it. explain why you wouldn't buy it to your friends and family and/. Don't decry the RIAA because they want a return on their investment. THEY'RE A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY! I don't understand why this concept is so alien.
They listen to who knows how many terrible bands, record albums for 1% of them, and when 1% of those albums hit - they try to recoup their investment and make a profit. They produce what sells. They produce what the consumers demand. Consumers want bare midriffs, and blondes with questionable morals and erotic dance routines more than they want good music - and that's what they get sold.
You people are wasting time waxing philosophic about free content, when in reality you're just trying to justify your habit of stealing this 'crap' content that you all complain about incessantly. either hollywood produces crap that you don't want to buy or watch - or admit to yourselves that Warner Brothers deserves to get their $20 for that Matrix dvd.
educate one another on the limitations of new technologies, don't try to sell each other on neo-communist, free content rhetoric. You don't do it very well and you do it -every- time a standard with a protection scheme comes down the pipe. maybe when consumers demand artistic content delivered via the Modified Street Performer Protocol the markets can have reasonable content and freeloaders can hoard content from artists they refuse to support.
isn't competition to win the number one reason most slashdotters -are- slashdotters?
isn't asking a group of overachievers to wax philosophic on 'entertainment' value over competitive value a little counter-productive?
It's like getting a defense of socialism as a socio-economic theory from a citizen in a capitalist culture who's never seen socialism, let-alone lived in one.
granted, the true ivory tower academics that are -really- into creating value without accumulating through opensource do exist... but i maintain most of/. is not in this group.
and as you may surmise, no, I don't know of any such games;)
seriously though, to avoid being redundant - i'll ignore the technical problems we just got away from when we moved from machines where the app owned the system. i'm sure they've been posted by now.
what kind of statement is this guy making? how in the world is a machine going to understand the contextual difference between typing a text document, typing a spreadsheet, typing program code, typing an url, typing a check, etc etc? i mean, that kind of context comes from at least a couple lines of typing, and why waste time pulling up the wrong interface and switching over after a minute when the user can just specify with a quick click. and what about perusing documents? looking at source code without wanting to actually type? we'll still need an environment to select interfaces.
And aren't those neat 'buttons' he was talking about to pull up your documents and applications, just those cute little configurable software buttons we call icons? And with the proliferation of USB keyboards i see more and more that have 'email' 'browser' and 'word' buttons on them (not to mention countless others)
Aren't computers easier to use now than ever before because people have demanded the consistant interface design that comes from the OS?
as for easier installations - well most of them would be brain-dead one-click affairs - except that users have demanded flexibility and control in the form of changing installation directories, selectively installing components, etc. try releasing software with one click installation(well, two for those damn EULAs;). Your support costs just to answer the phone will crush that concept.
There are personal computers, and there are appliances - and never the twain shall meet. Demanding one to merge into the other is like asking television or movies to become interactive.
... if they follow through, will best java in usability, at least.
with Java you get a particular language with which to 'write once', compiled down to pseudo-code and then 'run anywhere' having an interpreter.
with.NET, microsoft has decided to keep the pseudo-code interpreter concept for the 'run anywhere'. but has actually decided to open things up. from what i've heard, they will allow various language support. that is, if someone can write a Perl compiler - that compiles down to.NET pcode - then you can use Perl programming on the.NET interpreters, with garbage collection, and the marketing items.
I personally see this as a Good Idea(tm) - as one of the fundamental flaws of Java is the absurd amount of crap required to do the simplest tasks. even though the thought of COBOL or ADA.NET is more than slightly unnerving.
...i don't get em. i'm sure there are alot of pivotal people in alot of organizations the world over. i'm sure their organizations would be hurt if they left - but it isn't going to destroy everything that remains behind. not if there really was something there to begin with.
your first responsibility in business is to yourself. you cannot hold yourself responsible for the position that a company is in (unless you made the decisions to get them there). you cannot hold yourself accountable for the results of your moving on. you cannot hold yourelf accountable for your friends well-being.
if they need to find new jobs - that cannot be your fault. if management was competent they wouldn't be in this situation. and if you see impending doom - then your friends must see it as well. i'm sure you've talked about it before with them. it seems everyone in your situation knows the score. their decisions are their own - as are yours.
the company has no loyalty to you. if you weren't performing to their expectations, they'd replace you. so why feel bad when they aren't performing to your expectations, and you replace them?
there is no loyalty in business. there's honesty, and integrity - and that's all you need to worry about.
i guess no generation will ever have to worry about growing up in a world without Strom Thurman in office.
i mean, i personally think that one of the major problems with our society now, is that common sense and logic are no longer required for survival. hence, the preponderance of people who probably shouldn't be alive - trying to negotiate an urban center in a canyonero.
but now, when they finally are about to shuffle off this mortal coil - we'll go and grow em a new lung, or liver, or spine.
well, at least maybe with immortality people will get over their quibblings about not sending willing participants on colonizing missions to distant planets.
maybe we will explore the cosmos - not by creating wormholes or by breaking the universal speed limit, but by slowly and surely plodding along. who cares how many light years till we get to alpha centauri! we've got the time.
just as five minutes seem like a lifetime to children, just as hours go by without adults really noticing them; perhaps someday we'll patiently read quadrillion page novels between solar systems.
well shit, we'll have to go somewhere to get away from all these immortal mental midgits!
the primary problem is that there is no efficient way for power providers to 'store up' on power. they can't run a plant just as hard at night, and save up electricity to meet the peek demand - they have to generate at near the level of demand or lose it.(at least alot of it)
as soon as someone wakes up and realizes that battery backups are about the worst way to store energy, maybe we can start to deal with it.
back a while in wired (8.05) there was an article about using flywheels to store energy (story). and a former aeronautics guy (company) who was working on it. (there's also some others link, link, and probably others) it was truly fascinating and they claimed energy storage efficiency of many times the level of currently used batteries. (not much of a feat, batteries suck)
Nasa's power and propulsion office was looking to replace the batteries in the ISS with this stuff (story) what ever happened to that crap?
and how long will it take power companies to catch on?
perhaps only the lack of competition allows them to point figers instead of solving their problems?
so it can be assembled with a screwdriver and some hex wrenches...
so it'll replace something dirty inefficient and dangerous (the people?)
so it fits in a couple large dufflebags and some cardboard boxes.
but he says they'll have to talk to city planners. so it needs an infrastructure...
they say they'll design cities -around- IT...
they say they'll have to talk to regulators and university persidents about retrofitting for IT
well it can't hover or fly, imho... if it hovered, it wouldn't need an infrastructure unless it's like those magnetic trains.
if it flew... well can you imagine the liability lawsuits? plus, again - no infrastructure needed, unless they want to pad the ground for impact;)
my guess: magneto-repulsive hovering rollerblades/skateboard/scooter-stye thing.
cardboard boxes: large hover inducing... plates.
dufflebag: implements to assemble... device.
demo: Kamen hovering on device from plate 1 to plate 2
funny though, it was all a big secret from the press till they showed the computer geeks...
isn't that what he's proposing? charging small amounts from the fan base for the content - eschewing the process and middlemen? Sure, Stephen King may not have been pleased with a couple hundred grand off 7 parts of his wilting Plant, but i'd imagine many web authors would be more than pleased with that.
The only way such ventures will (and do) fail, like Stan Lee's online venture failed, like most of the Image comic book ventures failed, is if the content just isn't worth the price. If the content, really is just consumed due to a fabricated quality-level, pumped by the marketing machine. I think guys in King's situation are underestimating the power and reach of marketing to the passive crowd - vs providing content the interactive crowd desires.
Ask a fan of Pvponline if they wouldn't kick in $2/year to see Scott do PvP in full color every day... there is such content, there is such demand... the key is getting the pricing structure to match it. I have to believe that even a 40% paythrough of Kurtz fan base at $2/year would blow away what he gets from banner ads.
(un)fortunately enough - charging for content just might prove to the content creator that advertisers are willing to pay to fund the crap gobbled up by the masses - the crap that educated consumers just would not pay for themselves.
(TV sitcoms are another great example as a whole)
Slashdot Mirror
most pages out there aren't worth a penny.
web content needs to stick to the 'free' [as in beer] model of broadcast tv. certain sites (much like cable tv) may be able to sell access - but only because of the quality of their content. we shouldn't all just accept 'penny per page' as the standard. the standard should be 'free'. the exception should be micropayments.
in a world where your competition doesn't have to charge -you- money (getting theirs from advertisers), pay sites are going to have a hard time convincing people that:
1. the content is worth the money.
2. they aren't unnecessarily splitting the page up to increase 'hits' (and thereby payments)
3. it's worth having your personal and billing information in some central location to facilitate a 'transparent' experience.
people are vocally worried about all the potential abuses of MS collecting user information in a central location. but to pull this off, you not only have to do that same thing - but through some intermediary or council.
and we all know how fair, impartial and just all the government sponsored net cos have been thus far.
*cough*RAND*cough*new TLDs*cough*
It's not for the costs of the tools (ala msdn).
.Net services -don't- include CA. (which would be a shameful oversight)
.Net services from MS?
It's for the costs of access to their prebuilt -services-. If you have the skill to write and support your own shopping cart, you don't shell out $1000.
I mean, the price bar was set by Verisign. They'll charge you $1400 a year for a certificate and 'payment services' (cybercash).
If you snub Verisign and hit up Thawte ($125) for your certificate, and MS for your 'payment services' ($1000) it looks like you're -saving- $375 to me. And that's if MS
Is everyone so terrified of writing their own web calendar that they feel 'robbed' by 'having' to buy
But I suppose writing a well-thought article/post that points out that MS is -saving- you money (albeit a slight bit), or even just releasing their services at the already established going rate, just doesn't get the hits.
I can't honestly believe that microsoft 'hid' the file types dialog box for some evil purpose. they're quite frankly: pretty bad at intuitive interfaces. i mean, c'mon. if they could make a good interface, they would. it sells better. it'd be an improvement, and they can sell improvements.
/. heading that there'd be a rational article behind that link that looked into the ways that companies try to thrust their proprietary file -formats- onto the world, and squeeze developers later on. (a la Compuserve/Gif, and the concepts behind RAND)
and most media programs now (real and winamp included) have code to check the program associated with the media they deal with, and incessently remind you that they can usurp control of those files if you just click 'ok'.
i can't honestly believe that microsoft is going to forge a monopoly through file association. hell, i thought reading the
it's easy to hate the winner, to call them a cheater. much easier than admitting that they're better; that they did the work and deserve it.
if corporate reorganizing has shown anything - it's the value of contract workers.
contractors don't care much for corporate loyalty or security, as canceled contracts have termination clauses that are agreed upon at the outset by both parties.
i think what we'll see as the information age settles into an optimal pattern is that contracting firms will grow increasingly popular to large corporations. these firms will encapsulate a group of people who work well together with perhaps specialties.
this may facilitate a greater focus on tech workers and their abilities, but i doubt to the programmers-as-rock-stars hype level that the bubble promised.
of course contractors undoubtedly charge more than a corporation would pay for direct work. but the value of the corporations has always been their assets, their management, their (intellectual) property, and their brands. they succeed regardless of individual workers within them. they can hire a dozen contracting teams to work on a dozen products this year, and next year they don't have to worry about what to assign them to. their production can expand and contract much more naturally with the market. and these contractions will have less effect.
employees i believe will tend more toward these shops. a small contract group has more loyalty to workers, is by definition a flatter organization, and much more closely tied to employees.
granted this theory applies to large corporations - the nortels, the big three, the boeings, et al. small flexible mobile companies will grow and die as they always have. dependant on the drive, timliness, and accuracy of their team, vision, and product.
when in a recent interview this guy says his only mistake with ultima online was not charging enough?
perhaps thats just because the pricing was the only thing garriott himself was involved in regarding the game.
i'm excited as a gamer when new, interesting, and fun games come out. not when great game designer falls from creating one of the greatest rpgs ever (ultima4) to not even publicly recognizing the bad decision making regarding the launch and execution of the 2 most recent influential games (u9, uo) to hold his name.
shame on the cult of personality.
that's such a ridiculous convetion. I'd like to mod down this article for even mentioning it.
Did anyone ever think that we didn't sign it - not because restricting pollution is a bad idea - but because the protocols themselves aren't very good at what they do?
would you rather be the industrialized nation that approved the wholesale sale of pollution rights in third world countries?
that's right. the kyoto protocol exempts developing nations from pollution restrictions. If you were worried about the way we exploit the third world now, think about the ramifications of allowing a developing government to -sell- the rights to pollute in the very areas that thus far have been protected from pollution through their lack of industrialization.
And who exactly -has- ratified or acceeded to the kyoto protocol?
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/kpstats.pdf
A sizeable list of developing and third world countries has acceeded to be sure, but -missing- more prominantly alongside the US is: Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and many others.
So do think maybe it's a matter of propaganda and presentation that there was a 'bonfire' set by our declination of Kyoto?
Sure, the rest of the world tends to hate america - but lets at least look at facts before we accept the sensationalism presented on TV.
I mean c'mon.
how different is microsoft bolting features onto windows different from how General Motors bolts features into cars?
Does it bother anyone that a stock GM car comes only with a Delco radio? Is this really so different? Does it bother anyone that Ford trucks ship with Firestone tires?
There's still a thriving aftermarket for car stereos, tires, fuzzy dice, upholstery, struts, shocks, engine mods, etc.
Why get upset when microsoft bolts a rudimentary IM client into windows? Why worry? Is it that Microsoft is unfortunately one of the better software developers, and people are terrified of competing against the team that always wins?
If you can't convince someone that your tires or shocks are better than stock - then you don't make a sale. Why should it be any different for a streaming video package?
Should the Big Three ship without windshields just so the little guys in the business get a crack at the market?
Maybe those companies saw what microsoft sees: if you ship a fully featured product that meets all of a user's needs adequately out of the gate; you'll get more business than if you left important pieces of the experience out.
Our parents don't want to go online to download ICQ or Winamp. They'd be lucky if they even knew what the leading packages were for any given media/internet feature. They are Microsoft's market. If microsoft didn't include functionality that allowed them to see pictures of, or see video of, or have an IM chat with, their grandchildren - then they'd start to percieve microsoft's offering as somewhat broken - just as any of us would perceive a car sold without tires.
The -only- way to stop microsoft (if you don't like it, hate it, fear it) is to vote with your feet. Don't buy it. Don't try to convert microsoft users (they already bought theirs) - Educate people getting ready to buy a new system. Throw together and host a download of your favorite *nix flavor that has a better feature set. Support that download and it's users. Educate clients (if you're a tech) about microsoft alternatives: their lower cost of ownership and their (at least) comparable performance and superior flexibility.
but don't whine and bitch online because Microsoft is winning.
i dunno. looking at suck and looking at salon, i don't think either changed their design even once. and if they did - i sure hope they didn't pay too much for it. but with the traffic those sites generated, and the *ahem* qualifications of most e-zine authors, i'd really hope their monthly bandwidth bill exceeded their content costs.
but in any case, whenever your cost (whatever it is really) is greater than your revenue (wherever it comes from) it's bad business. that simple. it'll fail regardless of it's quality, it's genre, or whether it's a corporate backed attempt or a startup.
I think perhaps i'm missing the economic point of the article though. Where is the fear that power is consolidating? Is it because salon is going, and suck and feed are gone? I mean, those were boutique pubs at best. Is journalism threatened because Suck can't make money?
It's still cheaper to start a (pardon the expression) ebusiness than any other kind. Can one deny the web is still the most viable way of allowing a diversity of players? where's the danger to competition?
Failure is part of it, but just because some startups failed doesn't mean that the Harrison Beurgeron (sp?) corporations are moving in. It just means -that- experiment failed. the next have to try harder.
Are we going to fault everyone else besides ourselves for the decline in Net content? I mean, if a business' revenue is not sufficient to cover its costs (bandwidth mostly) - isn't that just a bad business? Does it matter what the content is? or who's backing it?
Is it really indicative of a state of our 'new' economy? If we can't produce content that people are willing to pay subscription fees for, or generate the audiences that advertisers are willing to pay to advertise too - then how exactly is that the fault of the conglomerates?
Perhaps Feed and Suck were too niche. Perhaps Salon just isn't all that great. Can you deny that they'd never have gotten half their time in the sun in paper and ink?
The Net has lowered the barrier of entry into the world economy - but it's even more ruthless on bad business. You can't succeed just because there's no competition in your area. All competition is everywhere. You have to provide the content that creates an audience that you can sell.
Demonizing the big businesses because a site 'suck'd and died is really quite childish.
online magazines are a business like any other. As an added advantage - the costs for an ezine roughly equate to exactly as many issues being printed as needed - so even if msnbc and cnn ate their audience - if they had decent content and a revenue stream then they'd be able to cover and cultivate the audience they kept.
who knows, in 5 years maybe we'll see that there is -no- market for content like salon, slate, or suck online. Perhaps their light-minded drivel is best suited for dead-tree editions you pick up for the flight and discard.
You can't blame the conglomerates for everything. The audience spoke and killed those zines. If people find content worth it - they'll pay. Perhaps when all the other zines dry up - and there's no other place to turn online to waste some time - a quality subscription site will spring up and flourish.
or not.
last i heard they landed a probe not even designed to land, right on eros.
to me that's more than half the difficulty of a 'deep impact' mission, delivering your payload to the asteroid.
i'd say NASA is quite capable of planetary defense.
gee. as long as macrovision is doing it there's no reason to worry.
you guys do realize how weak SafeDisc is for PC CD-ROM game protection right? and if SafeAudio has to be compatible with all audio readers produced after a certain point in time - then they can't even change the encryption. just hold onto your old cd players and wait for gamecopyworld to post a link to SafeAudio automated cracking.
and just where does macrovision get its 'billions of dollars' estimates? it's like the same marketoid bullet point quote under all of their products. gotta love unqualified marketing crap.
the real question is - is this really what's going to bring start-ups into michigan?
are the courts really such a barrier to startups?
or is it the fact that land value anywhere outside of bloody detroit (literally) tends to be much higher than 'middle of nowhere' desert land - and the fact that there isn't much industry to piggy back off and steal people from out here except the big 3 automakers.
and it's cold as fuck.
but i guess, detroit just legalized gambling - so it makes sense that startups should follow.
saying this as a michigan resident working for an internet startup =p
And that's what /. is for. We know they aren't going to advertise these things, but geeks work for the big companies somewhere along the lines, and so we can share knowledge here. I'm fine with /. as a location for swapping knowledge and organization... i'm just saying that a gross majority of /. just spouts off the same philosophical rants each and every time these same issues come up (IP, copyright, patents, content-protection, et al)
/. is aware of these limitations we can exponentially increase awareness among the consumers. College students, technically-minded professionals, and hardcore geeks -are- the target demographics for 99% of these technologies (someone has to buy the $6000 digital vhs packages long before it trickles down to the consumer)
And once
The thrust of my point is - we've heard the philosophical arguments before. more times than we'd care to i'd imagine. so why don't we, as a giant technology demographic, do something about it?
Firewire has content protection? fair enough. i wasn't too impressed with the technology anyway (convince me that your data transfer tech is the greatest thing since sliced bread by speed limiting the first two revisions to a fraction of their potential?) now i have one more reason to not buy it; One more consideration to weigh heavily against any benefits it provides.
From reading your comment, I understand that you are precisely not the type of slashdotter i referenced in my post.
/. argues against itself so often, on issues that almost no-one is arguing -for-. Its totally unproductive for everyone to go off on a rant on 'free content' on /. - it's been done. ad nauseum.
/. to organize a petition to those standards committees, and try to explain our positions to those that are going to move forward with Bad Ideas(TM). they should organize themselves... but of course, that takes Work(tm), and these people would rather rail on with the same rants than -do- something.
/. would look past what Sony or Microsoft is pushing and say, hey? why do i need this new TV Format/Operating System/Server Application again? I'm sure we don't need HDTV so bad that we'll put up with not being able to record X-Files, and watch it on monday night instead. And just like DivX (the CircuitCity/Disney venture, not the good one;) they'll go away or change. If it doesn't - everyone who buys something like that deserves it.
you understand the power the consumer has over corporations. the power of voting with your feet. as you did over Kosmo. As just about everyone would if ICQ changed their terms of service to something unbearable, or added a cost.
My point was directed to these people who are complaining about HDTV being 'crippled' with content protection, and saying that it should be 'open' because 'information wants to be free' and that whole standard line of crap. What they need to do is wake up and realize they -are- the content creators' God (love the quote, do you know the source?).
people should use their time and energy to educate one another on technology drawbacks. That they should use
Bravo to you sir, a consumer who votes with his feet. (and a slashdotter who reads/replies-to non-troll comments) When you see a standard coming that removes freedoms you enjoy - you simply do not purchase any product or service that promotes that standard or business practice. I just wish that
i dont see why content creators shouldn't be able to protect their content. they made it. they made the investment. 99% of the /. knee jerk reaction is the fear of losing the free lunch.
/. Don't decry the RIAA because they want a return on their investment. THEY'RE A FOR-PROFIT COMPANY IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY! I don't understand why this concept is so alien.
studios made fight club. they didn't make you buy it. they didn't make you watch it. if they release it on the theoretical 'uncrackable' system so that you can't make a copy - they still can't -make- you buy it. even if the new system has a higher quality output. if studios back a standard you don't like, then vote with your dollar and take it somewhere else. It's the only thing they can and should react to.
believe it or not, studios do a valuable service. they sort through crap and take risks. they make 'safe' movies because it's exactly what audiences demand. did you guys ever notice that the pop culture obsession with fight club's philosophy is cruelly ironic considering the lifestyle of its fans?
If they put content on a medium or system that you don't approve of. just shut up and don't buy it. explain why you wouldn't buy it to your friends and family and
They listen to who knows how many terrible bands, record albums for 1% of them, and when 1% of those albums hit - they try to recoup their investment and make a profit. They produce what sells. They produce what the consumers demand. Consumers want bare midriffs, and blondes with questionable morals and erotic dance routines more than they want good music - and that's what they get sold.
You people are wasting time waxing philosophic about free content, when in reality you're just trying to justify your habit of stealing this 'crap' content that you all complain about incessantly. either hollywood produces crap that you don't want to buy or watch - or admit to yourselves that Warner Brothers deserves to get their $20 for that Matrix dvd.
educate one another on the limitations of new technologies, don't try to sell each other on neo-communist, free content rhetoric. You don't do it very well and you do it -every- time a standard with a protection scheme comes down the pipe. maybe when consumers demand artistic content delivered via the Modified Street Performer Protocol the markets can have reasonable content and freeloaders can hoard content from artists they refuse to support.
isn't competition to win the number one reason most slashdotters -are- slashdotters?
/. is not in this group.
;)
isn't asking a group of overachievers to wax philosophic on 'entertainment' value over competitive value a little counter-productive?
It's like getting a defense of socialism as a socio-economic theory from a citizen in a capitalist culture who's never seen socialism, let-alone lived in one.
granted, the true ivory tower academics that are -really- into creating value without accumulating through opensource do exist... but i maintain most of
and as you may surmise, no, I don't know of any such games
*NIX are for kids.
;). Your support costs just to answer the phone will crush that concept.
seriously though, to avoid being redundant - i'll ignore the technical problems we just got away from when we moved from machines where the app owned the system. i'm sure they've been posted by now.
what kind of statement is this guy making? how in the world is a machine going to understand the contextual difference between typing a text document, typing a spreadsheet, typing program code, typing an url, typing a check, etc etc? i mean, that kind of context comes from at least a couple lines of typing, and why waste time pulling up the wrong interface and switching over after a minute when the user can just specify with a quick click. and what about perusing documents? looking at source code without wanting to actually type? we'll still need an environment to select interfaces.
And aren't those neat 'buttons' he was talking about to pull up your documents and applications, just those cute little configurable software buttons we call icons? And with the proliferation of USB keyboards i see more and more that have 'email' 'browser' and 'word' buttons on them (not to mention countless others)
Aren't computers easier to use now than ever before because people have demanded the consistant interface design that comes from the OS?
as for easier installations - well most of them would be brain-dead one-click affairs - except that users have demanded flexibility and control in the form of changing installation directories, selectively installing components, etc. try releasing software with one click installation(well, two for those damn EULAs
There are personal computers, and there are appliances - and never the twain shall meet. Demanding one to merge into the other is like asking television or movies to become interactive.
... if they follow through, will best java in usability, at least.
.NET, microsoft has decided to keep the pseudo-code interpreter concept for the 'run anywhere'. but has actually decided to open things up. from what i've heard, they will allow various language support. that is, if someone can write a Perl compiler - that compiles down to .NET pcode - then you can use Perl programming on the .NET interpreters, with garbage collection, and the marketing items.
.NET is more than slightly unnerving.
with Java you get a particular language with which to 'write once', compiled down to pseudo-code and then 'run anywhere' having an interpreter.
with
I personally see this as a Good Idea(tm) - as one of the fundamental flaws of Java is the absurd amount of crap required to do the simplest tasks. even though the thought of COBOL or ADA
mod down CmdrTaco for Trolling with the last line of his post?
...i don't get em. i'm sure there are alot of pivotal people in alot of organizations the world over. i'm sure their organizations would be hurt if they left - but it isn't going to destroy everything that remains behind. not if there really was something there to begin with.
your first responsibility in business is to yourself. you cannot hold yourself responsible for the position that a company is in (unless you made the decisions to get them there). you cannot hold yourself accountable for the results of your moving on. you cannot hold yourelf accountable for your friends well-being.
if they need to find new jobs - that cannot be your fault. if management was competent they wouldn't be in this situation. and if you see impending doom - then your friends must see it as well. i'm sure you've talked about it before with them. it seems everyone in your situation knows the score. their decisions are their own - as are yours.
the company has no loyalty to you. if you weren't performing to their expectations, they'd replace you. so why feel bad when they aren't performing to your expectations, and you replace them?
there is no loyalty in business. there's honesty, and integrity - and that's all you need to worry about.
i guess no generation will ever have to worry about growing up in a world without Strom Thurman in office.
i mean, i personally think that one of the major problems with our society now, is that common sense and logic are no longer required for survival. hence, the preponderance of people who probably shouldn't be alive - trying to negotiate an urban center in a canyonero.
but now, when they finally are about to shuffle off this mortal coil - we'll go and grow em a new lung, or liver, or spine.
well, at least maybe with immortality people will get over their quibblings about not sending willing participants on colonizing missions to distant planets.
maybe we will explore the cosmos - not by creating wormholes or by breaking the universal speed limit, but by slowly and surely plodding along. who cares how many light years till we get to alpha centauri! we've got the time.
just as five minutes seem like a lifetime to children, just as hours go by without adults really noticing them; perhaps someday we'll patiently read quadrillion page novels between solar systems.
well shit, we'll have to go somewhere to get away from all these immortal mental midgits!
the primary problem is that there is no efficient way for power providers to 'store up' on power. they can't run a plant just as hard at night, and save up electricity to meet the peek demand - they have to generate at near the level of demand or lose it.(at least alot of it)
as soon as someone wakes up and realizes that battery backups are about the worst way to store energy, maybe we can start to deal with it.
back a while in wired (8.05) there was an article about using flywheels to store energy (story). and a former aeronautics guy (company) who was working on it. (there's also some others link, link, and probably others) it was truly fascinating and they claimed energy storage efficiency of many times the level of currently used batteries. (not much of a feat, batteries suck)
Nasa's power and propulsion office was looking to replace the batteries in the ISS with this stuff (story) what ever happened to that crap? and how long will it take power companies to catch on?
perhaps only the lack of competition allows them to point figers instead of solving their problems?
so it can be assembled with a screwdriver and some hex wrenches... ;)
so it'll replace something dirty inefficient and dangerous (the people?)
so it fits in a couple large dufflebags and some cardboard boxes.
but he says they'll have to talk to city planners. so it needs an infrastructure...
they say they'll design cities -around- IT... they say they'll have to talk to regulators and university persidents about retrofitting for IT
well it can't hover or fly, imho... if it hovered, it wouldn't need an infrastructure unless it's like those magnetic trains.
if it flew... well can you imagine the liability lawsuits? plus, again - no infrastructure needed, unless they want to pad the ground for impact
my guess: magneto-repulsive hovering rollerblades/skateboard/scooter-stye thing.
cardboard boxes: large hover inducing... plates.
dufflebag: implements to assemble... device.
demo: Kamen hovering on device from plate 1 to plate 2
funny though, it was all a big secret from the press till they showed the computer geeks...
you know, for kids!
isn't that what he's proposing? charging small amounts from the fan base for the content - eschewing the process and middlemen? Sure, Stephen King may not have been pleased with a couple hundred grand off 7 parts of his wilting Plant, but i'd imagine many web authors would be more than pleased with that.
The only way such ventures will (and do) fail, like Stan Lee's online venture failed, like most of the Image comic book ventures failed, is if the content just isn't worth the price. If the content, really is just consumed due to a fabricated quality-level, pumped by the marketing machine. I think guys in King's situation are underestimating the power and reach of marketing to the passive crowd - vs providing content the interactive crowd desires.
Ask a fan of Pvponline if they wouldn't kick in $2/year to see Scott do PvP in full color every day... there is such content, there is such demand... the key is getting the pricing structure to match it. I have to believe that even a 40% paythrough of Kurtz fan base at $2/year would blow away what he gets from banner ads.
(un)fortunately enough - charging for content just might prove to the content creator that advertisers are willing to pay to fund the crap gobbled up by the masses - the crap that educated consumers just would not pay for themselves.
(TV sitcoms are another great example as a whole)