To those talking about the DS shortage as a marketing strategy, I highly doubt it. Two reasons:
1. The system is launching Nov. 21st here and Dec. 2 in Japan. That's the closest international hardware launch Nintendo has ever done. I assume Japan will get unit priority after launch to make sure there are units on the shelf to combat Sony's PSP which launches Dec 12.
2. Hardware was finalized only a few months ago, which means production has only recently begun. Add to this that each unit has 2 LCD screens (one being a touch screen), and you can see a possible kink in the supply chain here.
So while shortages always generate a frenzy, and thus free marketing in a sense, I think the shortage here is genuine.
Also, it is unclear whether or not this will hurt Nintendo. With PSP on the way sometime next year, having an install base of 4-5 million never hurts. Look at the wonders that did for PS2.
The question isn't whether or not people can think for themselves or not, but only the widely accepted notion that society has a obligation to protect children from certain things. Why? Because they are still learning -- developing. Studies have shown violence in media affects children.
Putting "mature" games in a different section is a good idea. Not that they need to be curtained off (though that's fine too), but arranging games alphabetically so Manhunt is next to Mickey Mouse's Soccer is just stupid and careless.
I disagree. Some kid's parents, yes, but I think the majority of the time the kid just walks down to the next game store and buys it there.
The problem is there are no actual LAWS on the book saying "don't sell this to someone under 18." If retailers are doing it, it's because of their own guilty consciouses.
I've had this debate many times with gamers, professors, mothers, friends. It boils down to there being violent content available to children without regulation. Yes, there are ratings, but they're hardly enforced.
From discussions I've had with various people, here's what I can remember us coming up with:
1. Ratings System -- Why is there not ONE unified ratings system spanning Movies/TV/Games/Music, etc. I'm sure it has to do with copyright and licensing, but that aside...having 3 different ratings systems that aren't all that obvious (TV is the worst culprit) leaves a bunch of confused parents and consumers.
2. Regulation -- Ratings exist, but why, unlike movies and alcohol, can a 12 year old walk into a gaming store and buy GTA/Doom/whatever? If they want to get a hold of it, it shouldn't be easy -- just like getting beer when you were 15 wasn't.:) Laws and penalties need to exist for those selling "mature" games to children and/or helping a child obtain such a game.
3. Social Responsibility -- Even with the above in place, there are some parents or people who just don't care. Mostly they're misinformed and don't know little johnny is beating up a prostitute behind a bush, but there are those out there who are perfectly willing to buy their 13 year-olds GTA (everyone's favorite example, so I use it). Society draws lines all the time -- alcohol sales, cigarrettes, pornography -- why should the same not be applied here?
4. Censorship -- This is a stupid answer. If I can watch someone's head get blow off in a movie, I should be able to do it myself on my TV too. So, call this an anti-answer.;)
The real thrust of the article(s) I thought is that games are seen differently from other forms of media and that gamers are taking the flak. I never understood this. When a really violent movie comes out, are viewers of the movie ridiculed for going to see it? No. So why are gamers compelled to defend gaming? Why is there not something being done to educate the public. Games aren't just Mario and Donkey Kong anymore -- it's not them weilding shotguns and stealing cars. Video games have expanded to include new audiences -- I just don't think the public understands this. Everytime I tell someone the average gamers age is 25 (maybe it's 28, I forget)...they can't believe it.
Ok, done defending.:) My personal opinion is the adoption of the "movies" rating system along with law to enforce sales of mature games to children. That solves the problem.
I'm not sure I buy the whole "technical school" thing for CS. Ya, if I wanted to be a mechanic or get a quick IT degree, sure, a technical school would be fine. But with something like CS, I find in addition to learning a few languages you DO need the theory. I was just saying that's not ALL you should be given.
I go to CMU, and I know plenty of people there who have gotten BS in CS and gone on to jobs. I know some who have stayed for Masters. I know very few who have stayed for PhD. So that says to me that people are jumping in, learning some theory and some languages, then going out and getting a job.
I guess my point is that colleges are teaching "employable programming skills" for CS. College just isn't for those wanting an even higher education. And since that's the case, I see no harm in electives geared directly at teaching languages. Believe it or not, they WILL have to program someday...PhD or not.:)
I'm of the opinion that language-specific classes are great to have at a college level. Not only can a student get a wide sampling of different languages, but I think it can also teach a lot in terms of language theory. (Common threads in languages, differences in languages, etc.) Also, these classes are almost ALWAYS electives. A CS major not wanting to touch a language-specific class doesn't have to -- it's there as a choice.
I think a diverse choice of classes using different languages and actually going in-depth into a language itself can be helpful. I mean, there are a lot of optimizations in languages, C for example, that are done by taking advantage of the structure of the language itself -- which one can only discover after diving headfirst into a language. I wish someone would have pointed certain things out to me about C or Java that aren't immediately apparent.
Bottomline, we're not all out to get PhD's and become evolutionary CS people. Some people just want to learn a language or two, get really good at it, and get a job. Not everyone wants to write a thesis on Compiler Optimizations.:)
Not sure why everyone is pissed at Apple about this...it's their *right* to participate in any or no trade events. And before you scream about abandoning the east coast...how do you know Apple won't just do their OWN show in NY or get another promoter to do the show?
It all depends on the college..
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
I think the difference between CS and CIS is something that varies throughout every college in the nation. As a high-school senior, I have been looking into colleges and found that CIS (or IT) programs vary VASTLY from college to college. Some focus on the technical and networking aspects, etc...while other focus on the humanities aspect of teamwork, management, and being able to communicate effectively with others. IT all depends I think on whether you go to a technical school or not. I'm looking at a few schools, one of which is Carnegie-Mellon (famous for their CS programs) and from what I've seen, the CIS major there is a mix of both. You focus on development of programs, etc, and you also get the humanities aspect. Then of course, there's the optional 5th year masters degree in MIS, which is completely business oriented.
The one general thing I keep hearing from all the colleges is that most of the CIS/IT people end up being the bosses of the CS people...I mean face it, unless you are a REALLY good coder, you can be bought at a dime a dozen. To find someone who has people skills, as well as a thourough understanding of computer knowledge is perhaps more rare. I think when it comes to the job market, an CIS major is much more likely to take a management position than a CS major...management skills are just not taught to CS people at most schools.
I can't see how you posibly can be MAD at a band for protecting what is theirs. No matter who it is or what they play, copyrighted music is NOT to be distributed without consent. About the lawsuit, it isn't AGAINST their fans...they are not threatening legal action to them at all. And Metallica also ALLOWS...even PROMOTES recording bootlegs. They are just concerned about their master recordings.
Slashdot Mirror
To those talking about the DS shortage as a marketing strategy, I highly doubt it. Two reasons:
1. The system is launching Nov. 21st here and Dec. 2 in Japan. That's the closest international hardware launch Nintendo has ever done. I assume Japan will get unit priority after launch to make sure there are units on the shelf to combat Sony's PSP which launches Dec 12.
2. Hardware was finalized only a few months ago, which means production has only recently begun. Add to this that each unit has 2 LCD screens (one being a touch screen), and you can see a possible kink in the supply chain here.
So while shortages always generate a frenzy, and thus free marketing in a sense, I think the shortage here is genuine.
Also, it is unclear whether or not this will hurt Nintendo. With PSP on the way sometime next year, having an install base of 4-5 million never hurts. Look at the wonders that did for PS2.
Wow. O_o
The question isn't whether or not people can think for themselves or not, but only the widely accepted notion that society has a obligation to protect children from certain things. Why? Because they are still learning -- developing. Studies have shown violence in media affects children.
Putting "mature" games in a different section is a good idea. Not that they need to be curtained off (though that's fine too), but arranging games alphabetically so Manhunt is next to Mickey Mouse's Soccer is just stupid and careless.
I disagree. Some kid's parents, yes, but I think the majority of the time the kid just walks down to the next game store and buys it there.
The problem is there are no actual LAWS on the book saying "don't sell this to someone under 18." If retailers are doing it, it's because of their own guilty consciouses.
I've had this debate many times with gamers, professors, mothers, friends. It boils down to there being violent content available to children without regulation. Yes, there are ratings, but they're hardly enforced.
:) Laws and penalties need to exist for those selling "mature" games to children and/or helping a child obtain such a game.
;)
:) My personal opinion is the adoption of the "movies" rating system along with law to enforce sales of mature games to children. That solves the problem.
From discussions I've had with various people, here's what I can remember us coming up with:
1. Ratings System -- Why is there not ONE unified ratings system spanning Movies/TV/Games/Music, etc. I'm sure it has to do with copyright and licensing, but that aside...having 3 different ratings systems that aren't all that obvious (TV is the worst culprit) leaves a bunch of confused parents and consumers.
2. Regulation -- Ratings exist, but why, unlike movies and alcohol, can a 12 year old walk into a gaming store and buy GTA/Doom/whatever? If they want to get a hold of it, it shouldn't be easy -- just like getting beer when you were 15 wasn't.
3. Social Responsibility -- Even with the above in place, there are some parents or people who just don't care. Mostly they're misinformed and don't know little johnny is beating up a prostitute behind a bush, but there are those out there who are perfectly willing to buy their 13 year-olds GTA (everyone's favorite example, so I use it). Society draws lines all the time -- alcohol sales, cigarrettes, pornography -- why should the same not be applied here?
4. Censorship -- This is a stupid answer. If I can watch someone's head get blow off in a movie, I should be able to do it myself on my TV too. So, call this an anti-answer.
The real thrust of the article(s) I thought is that games are seen differently from other forms of media and that gamers are taking the flak. I never understood this. When a really violent movie comes out, are viewers of the movie ridiculed for going to see it? No. So why are gamers compelled to defend gaming? Why is there not something being done to educate the public. Games aren't just Mario and Donkey Kong anymore -- it's not them weilding shotguns and stealing cars. Video games have expanded to include new audiences -- I just don't think the public understands this. Everytime I tell someone the average gamers age is 25 (maybe it's 28, I forget)...they can't believe it.
Ok, done defending.
I'm not sure I buy the whole "technical school" thing for CS. Ya, if I wanted to be a mechanic or get a quick IT degree, sure, a technical school would be fine. But with something like CS, I find in addition to learning a few languages you DO need the theory. I was just saying that's not ALL you should be given.
:)
I go to CMU, and I know plenty of people there who have gotten BS in CS and gone on to jobs. I know some who have stayed for Masters. I know very few who have stayed for PhD. So that says to me that people are jumping in, learning some theory and some languages, then going out and getting a job.
I guess my point is that colleges are teaching "employable programming skills" for CS. College just isn't for those wanting an even higher education. And since that's the case, I see no harm in electives geared directly at teaching languages. Believe it or not, they WILL have to program someday...PhD or not.
I'm of the opinion that language-specific classes are great to have at a college level. Not only can a student get a wide sampling of different languages, but I think it can also teach a lot in terms of language theory. (Common threads in languages, differences in languages, etc.) Also, these classes are almost ALWAYS electives. A CS major not wanting to touch a language-specific class doesn't have to -- it's there as a choice.
:)
I think a diverse choice of classes using different languages and actually going in-depth into a language itself can be helpful. I mean, there are a lot of optimizations in languages, C for example, that are done by taking advantage of the structure of the language itself -- which one can only discover after diving headfirst into a language. I wish someone would have pointed certain things out to me about C or Java that aren't immediately apparent.
Bottomline, we're not all out to get PhD's and become evolutionary CS people. Some people just want to learn a language or two, get really good at it, and get a job. Not everyone wants to write a thesis on Compiler Optimizations.
Not sure why everyone is pissed at Apple about this...it's their *right* to participate in any or no trade events. And before you scream about abandoning the east coast...how do you know Apple won't just do their OWN show in NY or get another promoter to do the show?
I think the difference between CS and CIS is something that varies throughout every college in the nation. As a high-school senior, I have been looking into colleges and found that CIS (or IT) programs vary VASTLY from college to college. Some focus on the technical and networking aspects, etc...while other focus on the humanities aspect of teamwork, management, and being able to communicate effectively with others. IT all depends I think on whether you go to a technical school or not. I'm looking at a few schools, one of which is Carnegie-Mellon (famous for their CS programs) and from what I've seen, the CIS major there is a mix of both. You focus on development of programs, etc, and you also get the humanities aspect. Then of course, there's the optional 5th year masters degree in MIS, which is completely business oriented. The one general thing I keep hearing from all the colleges is that most of the CIS/IT people end up being the bosses of the CS people...I mean face it, unless you are a REALLY good coder, you can be bought at a dime a dozen. To find someone who has people skills, as well as a thourough understanding of computer knowledge is perhaps more rare. I think when it comes to the job market, an CIS major is much more likely to take a management position than a CS major...management skills are just not taught to CS people at most schools.
I can't see how you posibly can be MAD at a band for protecting what is theirs. No matter who it is or what they play, copyrighted music is NOT to be distributed without consent. About the lawsuit, it isn't AGAINST their fans...they are not threatening legal action to them at all. And Metallica also ALLOWS...even PROMOTES recording bootlegs. They are just concerned about their master recordings.