Actually, you can purchase Sonic. Sega's coming out with a Dreamcast/emulator combination that will allow you to play 10 classic Genesis games, Sonic being one of them.
Of course, you can also play a few great classics in Shenmue. Hang On and Space Harrier for example.
Frogger, for example, is a hell of a lot older than these Sega Master System games. "Is anyone buying the original Frogger anymore?" No, unless you're a collector.
But Hasbro is now marketing Frogger with 3D graphics for various platforms (they are up to their second installment). If they lost the intellectual property rights due to "age", they wouldn't be able to make a profit on it now.
(Don't get me wrong. I despise Hasbro. Their games are utter crap, and the only good software that comes out of them first comes out of some stellar developers (like the awesome Rollercoaster Tycoon). Still, it makes a good argument).
How does being able to download music equate to "standing up now for true copyright protection" as the original poster put it?
If I want to make a backup copy of a song, I can simply rip the one song to my hard drive, or copy the song from one part of my hard drive to another part. There is nothing in the royality article that states this would be against the law.
All they're trying to do is prevent a user from transferring one digital copy of a song to another user on another computer. I can buy that.
Some musicians, and writers, and artists may choose to want their music roaming the net, but if others don't they shouldn't be penalized for trying to put bread on the table.
It's my understand, looking at the earlier Daily Radar article, that the ROMs this thing uses to play the Sega Master games could be totally illegal. That said, this is less an "anti-industry DVD player" and more "an illegal game player". Some of the ROMS are still under copyright by their original owners.
That's the other thing: system security. What Joe User needs an absolutely secure system?
So a script kiddie (or even an elite government hacker) breaks into my system with a well-documented hole that I haven't plugged up yet. So they see my pictures of my dog, a letter to a girlfriend and some poetry I've written. Big freakin' deal.
Again, the only people who need absolute security are those who have something to hide. Namely drug cartels, terroist groups and kiddie porners.
Why in God's name would you worry about someone packet sniffing your address, first of all?
Secondly, what would they care if you store a firearm in a particular place (I can just as easily overhear you by listening over your shoulder in a supermarket)?
Thirdly, if you were concerned (which would be ludicrous) why would you send the information to a friend over email anyway? Why not talk to him directly?
Except for the fact that the average user (including yourself and I) have absolutely no need for high-encryption in everyday email transfers. Credit card number transactions on web sites, yes. Letters to our girlfriends telling them we love them, no.
I've always argued that the general geek/Open Source community it very paranoid when it comes to things like encryption. If we're talking national security, yes, I think the president should have strong encryption. The average user has no need, and the only thing that encryption does to that user is make him look suspicious.
And if you're going to argue that "everyone has a right to privacy"... give me a break. So I, Joe User, encrypt my email on my home machine. What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window and looking at the screen. Or monitoring the disk transactions while they are plaintext. Or, for the paranoid, monitoring my keystrokes. There is no such thing as perfect privacy people... get over it. If I truly wanted to get a person's writing, I can.
Anyone consider swapping.biz with a more suitable, international name? I thought we were heading towards new accepted domains using foreign language characters and such.
What is someone in another country going to think when they look at the word "business" and look at ".biz" and wonder where the hell the "z" came from?
Everyone knows you start with small sales. A piece of software here. A movie there. Build up a feedback profile by buying small goods.
Then you can be trusted to sell more expensive goods.
$15,000+ to someone who's never sold anything to eBay, and may pocket the money and run? Fat chance.
And please, a 10 feedback is absolutely nothing. I wouldn't trust you with a $15,000 auction, not by a long shot. Get somewhere in the 1000-5000+ feedback range and we'll talk.
Any eBay'er worth his salt (myself included) knows to never buy anything from someone with zero feedback (also, don't expect payment from a zero feedback buyer).
After all - who are these notorious 'first adopters'*? And how many of those know about the "open source" idea and its advantages? Id bet it is virtually 100%.
Funny. I consider myself an "early adopter". I was one of the first people to purchase a Palm. I was one of the first people to purchase a Dell Inspiron 4000.
In no way did I ever say to myself "It's my civic duty to dismantle this thing and reveal its parts to the world" or even "Gee, it would be cool to rip this thing apart."
It's a funny thing about hackers. They only "hack" what they enjoy hacking, and argue their "truths" as universal. No hacker argues that they shouldn't rip apart their computers as soon as they buy them for the "advantages of Open Source". But they don't rip apart their cars. Or their toasters. Or their nightstands in their bedrooms. There's no "civic duty" to reveal the innards of a kid's wagon, either.
To argue that everything should be hacked is absolutely ridiculous. One, it's not useful, and two, it simply isn't practical. A hacker would go nuts, infinitely dividing each part until they try to figure out what quarks go where in a table. It cannot, and shouldn't, be done.
Like HAL, the Omniputer will, its backers claim, have an instinct to protect itself. 'If user errors start, and files get deleted, it will start to repair itself, just as cells repair themselves,' said De Saram. However, it is thought unlikely that it will try to kill its owner.
Just because something runs Linux doesn't necessarily mean it is, or should, be hackable. A lot of companies rely on internal trade secrets to secure a product. If hackers take apart a console, and create one better than the next generation console a company plans to make, and has already stepped up production for, and is committed to selling, how is the company going to make a profit.
Further, consoles are the worst thing to hack. The whole ideal behind a console is that the hardware is in a fixed state, that all games can take advantage of the fact that all the users have the same hardware, and can tweak the game to take advantage of that hardware (as opposed to, for example, the many different hardware configurations a game like Unreal Tournament for the PC must handle). If you take apart the console and modify it, you are breaking the whole principle of making it a console in the first place.
Computers, Tivos, they all make sense to hack. Consoles, VCR's, Toasters, there really is no point.
I'm a little surprised by the Zeed's candidness in their article, or stupidity. How are we supposed to take an article remotely seriously when the first paragraph details a guy "being squashed like a bug".
I'm not a big media watchdog, but isn't this a bit... cruel?
I found the Athlon vs. P4 test, using the recompiled ap, to be quite interesting. The cost performance ratio isn't nearly as great as I thought it would be. True, the P4 1.5 ghz performs better, but not a whole lot better than the Athlon 1.2 ghz. See the picture.
I'm not trying to knock Intel perse. My main machine is a P3 (Dell laptop, runs like a dream). But you have to wonder if the cost warrants, in this case, the extra 3 fps in compression.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you can also play a few great classics in Shenmue. Hang On and Space Harrier for example.
I like the Pentium III SpeedStep chip in my notebook just fine, thank you.
...cooks your toast, does your laundry, raises your kids...
Interesting point about the balance issue. I would agree with that.
Frogger, for example, is a hell of a lot older than these Sega Master System games. "Is anyone buying the original Frogger anymore?" No, unless you're a collector.
But Hasbro is now marketing Frogger with 3D graphics for various platforms (they are up to their second installment). If they lost the intellectual property rights due to "age", they wouldn't be able to make a profit on it now.
(Don't get me wrong. I despise Hasbro. Their games are utter crap, and the only good software that comes out of them first comes out of some stellar developers (like the awesome Rollercoaster Tycoon). Still, it makes a good argument).
If I want to make a backup copy of a song, I can simply rip the one song to my hard drive, or copy the song from one part of my hard drive to another part. There is nothing in the royality article that states this would be against the law.
All they're trying to do is prevent a user from transferring one digital copy of a song to another user on another computer. I can buy that.
Some musicians, and writers, and artists may choose to want their music roaming the net, but if others don't they shouldn't be penalized for trying to put bread on the table.
Proceed with caution.
So a script kiddie (or even an elite government hacker) breaks into my system with a well-documented hole that I haven't plugged up yet. So they see my pictures of my dog, a letter to a girlfriend and some poetry I've written. Big freakin' deal.
Again, the only people who need absolute security are those who have something to hide. Namely drug cartels, terroist groups and kiddie porners.
Secondly, what would they care if you store a firearm in a particular place (I can just as easily overhear you by listening over your shoulder in a supermarket)?
Thirdly, if you were concerned (which would be ludicrous) why would you send the information to a friend over email anyway? Why not talk to him directly?
I've always argued that the general geek/Open Source community it very paranoid when it comes to things like encryption. If we're talking national security, yes, I think the president should have strong encryption. The average user has no need, and the only thing that encryption does to that user is make him look suspicious.
And if you're going to argue that "everyone has a right to privacy"... give me a break. So I, Joe User, encrypt my email on my home machine. What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window and looking at the screen. Or monitoring the disk transactions while they are plaintext. Or, for the paranoid, monitoring my keystrokes. There is no such thing as perfect privacy people... get over it. If I truly wanted to get a person's writing, I can.
Where's the article on the innards of the Dreamcast?
What is someone in another country going to think when they look at the word "business" and look at ".biz" and wonder where the hell the "z" came from?
Everyone knows you start with small sales. A piece of software here. A movie there. Build up a feedback profile by buying small goods.
Then you can be trusted to sell more expensive goods.
$15,000+ to someone who's never sold anything to eBay, and may pocket the money and run? Fat chance.
And please, a 10 feedback is absolutely nothing. I wouldn't trust you with a $15,000 auction, not by a long shot. Get somewhere in the 1000-5000+ feedback range and we'll talk.
I would say this auction is a total fraud.
Does this now mean Distributed.net will pay to use our computers for commercial services, like Popular Power?
Funny. I consider myself an "early adopter". I was one of the first people to purchase a Palm. I was one of the first people to purchase a Dell Inspiron 4000.
In no way did I ever say to myself "It's my civic duty to dismantle this thing and reveal its parts to the world" or even "Gee, it would be cool to rip this thing apart."
It's a funny thing about hackers. They only "hack" what they enjoy hacking, and argue their "truths" as universal. No hacker argues that they shouldn't rip apart their computers as soon as they buy them for the "advantages of Open Source". But they don't rip apart their cars. Or their toasters. Or their nightstands in their bedrooms. There's no "civic duty" to reveal the innards of a kid's wagon, either.
To argue that everything should be hacked is absolutely ridiculous. One, it's not useful, and two, it simply isn't practical. A hacker would go nuts, infinitely dividing each part until they try to figure out what quarks go where in a table. It cannot, and shouldn't, be done.
Let me guess. They plan to use an Outback to get there.
Like HAL, the Omniputer will, its backers claim, have an instinct to protect itself. 'If user errors start, and files get deleted, it will start to repair itself, just as cells repair themselves,' said De Saram. However, it is thought unlikely that it will try to kill its owner.
"Well gee, it won't kill me? Sign me up."
Further, consoles are the worst thing to hack. The whole ideal behind a console is that the hardware is in a fixed state, that all games can take advantage of the fact that all the users have the same hardware, and can tweak the game to take advantage of that hardware (as opposed to, for example, the many different hardware configurations a game like Unreal Tournament for the PC must handle). If you take apart the console and modify it, you are breaking the whole principle of making it a console in the first place.
Computers, Tivos, they all make sense to hack. Consoles, VCR's, Toasters, there really is no point.
I'm not a big media watchdog, but isn't this a bit... cruel?
My apologies. Here's the link.
I'm not trying to knock Intel perse. My main machine is a P3 (Dell laptop, runs like a dream). But you have to wonder if the cost warrants, in this case, the extra 3 fps in compression.
Isn't this game older than dirt?
Just a thought.
Conspiracy theorists, take note.