This makes it all that much easier for MS to own the home console market. Face it, Sony is the only real competitor left. When these devices begin to become the hub for home entertainment, MS will set the rules.
Why exactly are we ruling out Nintendo as a serious competitor? Even if the Game Cube isn't as whiz-bang fast as other consoles (I really don't the specs, maybe it is) you can bet 3rd party developers will jump behind the GC,just like they have every other Nintendo console (except the VB), and there is an incredibly large, incredibly loyal fan base in place.
Why does the idea of paying a monthly fee to access the Microsoft Games and Entertainment network rankle my hide?
Honestly, I don't know. No one if forcing you to pay the fee. Get your games elsewhere, no one is stopping you.
The fact is, id gave the community a gift in the form of the Quake source. Why should some members of that community be allowed to be selfish, and take it all for themselves? They shouldn't, and we shouldn't let them.
Woah, hold your horses buddy. There's a basic fallacy in your argument in that the Quake source code is not a finite resource, like the gift you're comparing it to. It's not as if id laid out a plate of cookies, and he took every last one. Just because the author used the Quake source and hasn't released his source code (yet) doesn't mean that you can't also use the Quake source code, so the idea that he has "taken it all for himself" is absolutely rediculous.
I *know* I've seen this before on ign.com, but I can't find the link at the moment. The GBC *can* do Wolfenstein (which is considerably easier, when you think about it),
You are probably thinking Tyranasaurous Tex, which is a yet to be released game based on a Wolfenstein-like engine for the GBC. There was also a game for the classic GameBoy, called Faceball 2000, which ran a Wolfenstein-like engine. Of course, faceball ran at 6 fps (they've been counted).
so I'll go so far as to at least *hope* that the GBA can run a Doomlike, given enough work, even though it lacks a SuperFX equivalent (SNES Doom used it, IIRC).
I can garauntee you you'll see Doom-likes on the GBA. ONe company has already produced a tech demo if a Doom-like walkthrough that runs quite well.
Quake, however, is out of the question. There's a massive difference between a pseudo-3D hack and a full blown polygon rendering engine, and the GBA's 30-40 MHz CPU (again, IIRC) will not be up to snuff for that level of detail.
True, I have perhaps over estimated the GBAs power. Taking a quick peek at the iPaq's specs, I notice it runs twice as fast as the GBA. However, iPaq quake has windows to fight through, whereas on the GBA,the code runs right on top of the bare metal. Still not enough for to make up for the difference in processor speeds, though...
Something like Elite, maybe. Texture mapping? High polygon counts? err... no. The only way I see it working is with vastly different level design, such as using a non-polygonal system for maps,
Maybe something like the Descent engine, which was based on sticking cubes together cleverly, would work. As I recall, Descent was able to run on rather slow computers, and I would love to see more tunnel runners out there!
and very low poly count models to fight against. I'll never go so far as to say it can't be done, but I'll have to say it won't be easy, and it won't be done the same
As for enemies, I think that we'll probably see pre-rotated sprites on the GBA, as with Doom and Wolfenstein. With the Hardware sprites (and hardware sprite scaling) that the GBA has, developer would be stupid not to use them, it seems.
While we may not see any killer Quake-likes on the GBA, I can garauntee that we'll see several FPSes of some type.
This is a really ambitious port. I noticed it only runs on ARM based PDA's. Which is interesting considering Nintendo's new gameboy variation (called GameBoy Advance) will be ARM based. Specs of GBA: [http://www.gameboy.com/gbadvance.html] I wonder how hard it would be to port to this? I don't think the instruction set would differ too much. (unless they have some kind of custom cpu core)
The GameBoy Advance uses the ARM7DTMI, which is a standard CPU, unlike the GB(C) which uses an almost standard CPU. Any code written for an ARM CPU should be portable to the GBA, especially if it is in C, since there is an excellent C compiler for the GBA. While GBA developement tools are only available toe registered developers, there is quite a homebrew scene built up around the GB(C) and the same is beginning to happen for the GBa already, so I expect to see this sort of thing for the GBA.
Though getting it on to a nintendo cartridge would probably be the harder part.(?)
Actually, I don't think that will be teh hard part at all. There exists numerous "backup devices" for the GB(C) that can read cartridges and also write to a flash ROM based cartridge. These devices are widely used among both hobbyist developers and also R0Mz kidz. Since backup devices for the GB(C) are so popular, it seems likely that we'll see them for the GBA as well.
The "hard part" involved in writing or porting an FPS to the GBA is, like it's predecessor, it uses a tile based display system. The pixel are not individually accesable. While it is possible to overcome this with clever use of the tiles, it is still a hurdle to face and can create a bottleneck. On a system like the GB(C), getting around the tile based graphics has proven to be prohibitively difficult in almost every case. The GBA's graphics system, however, is much easier to manipulate, so I expect we'll see a couple of FPSes for it.
Despite many the fact that many Slashdot readers are jumping up (as always) to exclaim "Copyrights are bad! Big Coprorations are bad! Nintendo is bad!" Nintendo is well within the right, not only legally, but ethically. If you would care to read the orgininal suit (http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature_p age_2135_1.html) you would see that, too.
One fact that can not be ignored is that Nintendo is alleging that Imagine printed complete reprodcutions of several of Nintendo's (legally copyrighted) playing cards. Under "fair use" (which many Slashdot readers are quick to cite, as if it nullified all copyright law), Imagine is withing their right to, say, quote the text of the card. However, by reproducing the copyrighted artwork on the card in whole, they are clearly in violation of copyright law, both in letter and spirit. It's failry obvious that Imagine is making money off of artwork created by Nintendo. The same goes for other artwork that Nintendo alleges Imagine ripped out of their own manuals ans strategy guides.
Despite the fact that Nintendo is a big company, and they are making money, they had to work for it. Pokemon did not create itself, the people at Nintendo worked hard and made it a success through hard work, excellent marketing, prodcuts people like, and hard work. and no matter how "bad" people pokemon may be it is, supply and demand still rules, and there is definately a demand for pokemon products. As the copyright holders, it is Nintendos right to be the one making money off of Pokemon. For imagine to steal artwork is unethical and illegal. Nintendo is simply protecting their copyrights the way a good company should.
Those quick to judge Nintendo becasue in the Slashdot copyright protection is a capital crime should step back and look at what is really going on.
(Keep in mind I have not seen the Imagine publications allegedly in violation. My argument are made assuming that Nintendo's allegations are true, and that Imagine did in fact publish Trading Card scans and other artwork from Nintendo's manuals. If Nintendo is making this up, please, carry on with the Nintendo bashing.)
The stuff that was/is going on in Efnet. It seems that IRC servers have always been popular targets for attacks because of all the personall politics that whiz around on IRC. A lot of Efnet servers have been suffering downtime lately due to a bunch of DDoS attacks.
I see two solutions, neither of which I have much faith in. The first is to make the existing IRC servers much less rpne to DDoS attacks, and from what I know, there isn't really a way to do this yet. The second would be to try to migrate all the "serious" users to some other IRC network (a new one perhaps) while leaving behind all the squabbling lusers. Of course, the lusers would hop onto the bandwagon, and we'd be back to square one.
It's tamper-proof. Whenever the battery voltage changes, the SRAM holding the keys clears itself. This has come to be known as "Capcom Suicide."
Seems to make sense. Now I'm curious as to how it can be read by the cps2 board. The SRAM must be read sometime, by the hardware itself. How does that get past the countermeasure?
Why shouldn't it be hard now? Was this a "security through obscurity" thing that is no longer obscure?
Kind of. The problem with solving the encryption algorithm original was that there were no known variables. No one knew wha the encryption system was (still don't), what the encryption keys are (still don't), or what the unencrypted data was. Sort of like doing a jigsaw puzzle with square pieces and know picture on it.
Know that they have the unencrypted data, they at least have the picture on the puzzle, so they can check to see if the methods they try out are close to working or not. Combining that with what they've been able to gather about the encryption scheme anyway, someone should be able to crack it much easier now.
ps: I'm a bit confused as to why they don't know the encryptions keys. Since they're stored in an SRAM chip, should they be able to just read them out?
Now all they need to do is make Everquest for the PS2. Then you could buy a $2000 character to use with your $15k PS2. (perhaps using some of those cool new kidneys, too)
actually I was thinking more of a random visit to a random website - you click on a new link (say in some spam, or as a result of a search from some search engine) to check out a website sight-unseen and suddenly discover yourself bound by some legal agreement you haven't had a chance to read because you've never been there before
Ok, now I can understand what you're talking aobut and agree with you fully. That you should be bound to some agreement that you haven't even seen is silly. On the other hand, bypassing the agreement seems unfair on the maintainer of the website, but the webmaster should be responsible for keeping track of who has 'signed' and agreement and who hasn't. Perhaps webmaster who are seriously concerned about having people stick to their agreements should use a cookie to keep track of who has and who has has not signed an agreement, and whenever they try to access a page, give them the agreement for instead.
(similar to the way you UICTA allows you to be bound to the legal mumbo-jumbo that you can't read in some shrink-wrapped package because it's shrink-wrapped)
In a word, UICTA sounds completely bogus. This kind of quasi-legal reasoning is just silly.
Forget the shrink-wrap license agreement - are we going to find ourselves bound to some bozo's web-site's legal agreement just be clicking into it?
Oh, god forbid anyone in America is ever bound to taking responsibility for his own actions! I can't help it if I want to look at the pretty pr0n. It's freedom of speech, it is! They forced me to click on the license!
The point, if you can't tell I'm being sarcastic, is that no one is forcing you to agree with the term that "some bozo" sets on his website. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't visit the website.
If your neighbor invites you to a party at his house, but wants you to take off your shoes before you enter the house (he just had his carpet cleaned) are you going to yell and scream about free speech and trample on his carpet? No, either you agree with his terms and follow the terms, or you leave the party. It's the same thing with sites. There is no constitutional right that gives you unrestricted access to another's property, material or intellectual. If you want to reap the benefits of another's property, follow the rules. Clicking an agree button is that same as signing a contract.
"Does the government, or any other entity, have the right to control the information passed between two privately owned personal computers?" I say no -- if they suspect a crime, they need a warrant, etc.
I totally agree with the sentiment that what passes over a private network, and in many cases over the internet, should be protected as free speech. You are right is saying "They can get their fscking nose out of my network". However, simply because I agree that pirating (this may not be the right word, but I'll use it anyway) music is morally wrong, that doesn't mean that I advocate any kind of extreme or poorly thought-out measure (which governments are known for) against it.
My main point is that people need to recognize that is wrong to pirate music. Many people try to justifiy copying legally protected materials with false and flawed moralities. I will not try to stop you if you want to trade MP3s, but justifying your action with a flimsy "but I have to, it's Big Brother's fault" morality is ignorant.
But the beauty of the capitalist system is supposed to be that if we don't like the way business X is treating us, we can take our money to business Y. With CDs, however, as the FTC showed, X and Y collaborated to make it so that taking your money elsewhere didn't work
Great King Capitalist (the man who invented capitalism) thought up a solution to the problem of Corporation X and Y collaborating. If you can't tkae your money elsewhere, leave it in ytour pocket. Sure, you have to go without CDs for a while, but if enough people feel strongly about it, the CD comapnies will either change their ways or go out of business. It may not be very fun, but no one made a rule saying the CD companies must produce CDs at a reasonable cost for your enjoyment.
Now, if record companies were forced to sell their commodities to more than one distrubuor -- say, make MP3s a competing medium where the two could go back and forth, we might have something.
Another nice thing about capitalism, is if you don't like way corporation X or Y works, you get to start corporation Z. Get some venture capital, ge contracts with some recording artist, and produce your own MP3 albums. If your way is acutally better, you will win, and CDs will lose.
You see, its OK for the recording industry to screw consumers, but it's not OK for consumers to trade music over the internet because it costs the recording industry too many lost sales. Whatever.
But you don't understand how true this is. It is in fact ok for CD makers to screw cusumers, as much as the consumers (inluding me) may not like it. This is a capitalist society, in which the companies are supossed to look out for their own good, not for ours. They are here to make a buck, not to make us happy.
If you dislike the way a company works, your job is to stop purchasing they're products, which a lot of us have stopped doing.
However: it is not ok in any way to steal intellectual property by trading music over the internet. This analogy is perhaps a strech, but I will make it anyway: Trading MP3s becasue you dislike the high prices of CDs is similar to robbing your local grocery store becasue the price of bread is to high.
Of course, people are bound to argue that you don't actually take anyone's property by trading MP3s, you simple reproduce it. Consider counterfieting money. You don't have to rob anyone to print a bunch of twenty dollar bills for yourself, but it is sitll legally and morally wrong. It may seem silly that you shouldn't copy music that is so poorly secured (the wax lock analogy) but it is still wrong, and does in fact cost the recording companies money to produce CDs. Trading music that you do not own the rights to is damaging, and crimanially so
If you're upset a about the way CD companies treat cunstomers, boscott them, but do not use their high prices as a justification for a criminal act.
Re:Heck, Game Boy was slower than that
on
Dreadling Released
·
· Score: 1
Game Boy is based on a Z80 CPU clocked at just over 1.0 MHz. The graphics in FaceBall were like Wolf3d without the texture mapping
You forgot that faceball was slow slow it was barely playble. Granted, it was a great technical accomplishment, but a 3fps (no joking) Wolf-3d clone is no great gameplay accomplishment.
That there now exists a Wolf-3d clone for the Palm is no great technical accomplishment, to be sure, but a great gameplay accomplishement? Perhaps...
Slashdot Mirror
This makes it all that much easier for MS to own the home console market. Face it, Sony is the only real competitor left. When these devices begin to become the hub for home entertainment, MS will set the rules.
Why exactly are we ruling out Nintendo as a serious competitor? Even if the Game Cube isn't as whiz-bang fast as other consoles (I really don't the specs, maybe it is) you can bet 3rd party developers will jump behind the GC,just like they have every other Nintendo console (except the VB), and there is an incredibly large, incredibly loyal fan base in place.
Why does the idea of paying a monthly fee to access the Microsoft Games and Entertainment network rankle my hide?
Honestly, I don't know. No one if forcing you to pay the fee. Get your games elsewhere, no one is stopping you.
The fact is, id gave the community a gift in the form of the Quake source. Why should some members of that community be allowed to be selfish, and take it all for themselves? They shouldn't, and we shouldn't let them.
Woah, hold your horses buddy. There's a basic fallacy in your argument in that the Quake source code is not a finite resource, like the gift you're comparing it to. It's not as if id laid out a plate of cookies, and he took every last one. Just because the author used the Quake source and hasn't released his source code (yet) doesn't mean that you can't also use the Quake source code, so the idea that he has "taken it all for himself" is absolutely rediculous.
I *know* I've seen this before on ign.com, but I can't find the link at the moment. The GBC *can* do Wolfenstein (which is considerably easier, when you think about it),
You are probably thinking Tyranasaurous Tex, which is a yet to be released game based on a Wolfenstein-like engine for the GBC. There was also a game for the classic GameBoy, called Faceball 2000, which ran a Wolfenstein-like engine. Of course, faceball ran at 6 fps (they've been counted).
so I'll go so far as to at least *hope* that the GBA can run a Doomlike, given enough work, even though it lacks a SuperFX equivalent (SNES Doom used it, IIRC).
I can garauntee you you'll see Doom-likes on the GBA. ONe company has already produced a tech demo if a Doom-like walkthrough that runs quite well.
Quake, however, is out of the question. There's a massive difference between a pseudo-3D hack and a full blown polygon rendering engine, and the GBA's 30-40 MHz CPU (again, IIRC) will not be up to snuff for that level of detail.
True, I have perhaps over estimated the GBAs power. Taking a quick peek at the iPaq's specs, I notice it runs twice as fast as the GBA. However, iPaq quake has windows to fight through, whereas on the GBA,the code runs right on top of the bare metal. Still not enough for to make up for the difference in processor speeds, though...
Something like Elite, maybe. Texture mapping? High polygon counts? err... no. The only way I see it working is with vastly different level design, such as using a non-polygonal system for maps,
Maybe something like the Descent engine, which was based on sticking cubes together cleverly, would work. As I recall, Descent was able to run on rather slow computers, and I would love to see more tunnel runners out there!
and very low poly count models to fight against. I'll never go so far as to say it can't be done, but I'll have to say it won't be easy, and it won't be done the same
As for enemies, I think that we'll probably see pre-rotated sprites on the GBA, as with Doom and Wolfenstein. With the Hardware sprites (and hardware sprite scaling) that the GBA has, developer would be stupid not to use them, it seems.
While we may not see any killer Quake-likes on the GBA, I can garauntee that we'll see several FPSes of some type.
This is a really ambitious port. I noticed it only runs on ARM based PDA's. Which is interesting considering Nintendo's new gameboy variation (called GameBoy Advance) will be ARM based. Specs of GBA: [http://www.gameboy.com/gbadvance.html] I wonder how hard it would be to port to this? I don't think the instruction set would differ too much. (unless they have some kind of custom cpu core)
The GameBoy Advance uses the ARM7DTMI, which is a standard CPU, unlike the GB(C) which uses an almost standard CPU. Any code written for an ARM CPU should be portable to the GBA, especially if it is in C, since there is an excellent C compiler for the GBA. While GBA developement tools are only available toe registered developers, there is quite a homebrew scene built up around the GB(C) and the same is beginning to happen for the GBa already, so I expect to see this sort of thing for the GBA.
Though getting it on to a nintendo cartridge would probably be the harder part.(?)
Actually, I don't think that will be teh hard part at all. There exists numerous "backup devices" for the GB(C) that can read cartridges and also write to a flash ROM based cartridge. These devices are widely used among both hobbyist developers and also R0Mz kidz. Since backup devices for the GB(C) are so popular, it seems likely that we'll see them for the GBA as well.
The "hard part" involved in writing or porting an FPS to the GBA is, like it's predecessor, it uses a tile based display system. The pixel are not individually accesable. While it is possible to overcome this with clever use of the tiles, it is still a hurdle to face and can create a bottleneck. On a system like the GB(C), getting around the tile based graphics has proven to be prohibitively difficult in almost every case. The GBA's graphics system, however, is much easier to manipulate, so I expect we'll see a couple of FPSes for it.
Despite many the fact that many Slashdot readers are jumping up (as always) to exclaim "Copyrights are bad! Big Coprorations are bad! Nintendo is bad!" Nintendo is well within the right, not only legally, but ethically. If you would care to read the orgininal suit (http://www.dailyradar.com/features/game_feature_p age_2135_1.html) you would see that, too.
One fact that can not be ignored is that Nintendo is alleging that Imagine printed complete reprodcutions of several of Nintendo's (legally copyrighted) playing cards. Under "fair use" (which many Slashdot readers are quick to cite, as if it nullified all copyright law), Imagine is withing their right to, say, quote the text of the card. However, by reproducing the copyrighted artwork on the card in whole, they are clearly in violation of copyright law, both in letter and spirit. It's failry obvious that Imagine is making money off of artwork created by Nintendo. The same goes for other artwork that Nintendo alleges Imagine ripped out of their own manuals ans strategy guides.
Despite the fact that Nintendo is a big company, and they are making money, they had to work for it. Pokemon did not create itself, the people at Nintendo worked hard and made it a success through hard work, excellent marketing, prodcuts people like, and hard work. and no matter how "bad" people pokemon may be it is, supply and demand still rules, and there is definately a demand for pokemon products. As the copyright holders, it is Nintendos right to be the one making money off of Pokemon. For imagine to steal artwork is unethical and illegal. Nintendo is simply protecting their copyrights the way a good company should.
Those quick to judge Nintendo becasue in the Slashdot copyright protection is a capital crime should step back and look at what is really going on.
(Keep in mind I have not seen the Imagine publications allegedly in violation. My argument are made assuming that Nintendo's allegations are true, and that Imagine did in fact publish Trading Card scans and other artwork from Nintendo's manuals. If Nintendo is making this up, please, carry on with the Nintendo bashing.)
The stuff that was/is going on in Efnet. It seems that IRC servers have always been popular targets for attacks because of all the personall politics that whiz around on IRC. A lot of Efnet servers have been suffering downtime lately due to a bunch of DDoS attacks.
I see two solutions, neither of which I have much faith in. The first is to make the existing IRC servers much less rpne to DDoS attacks, and from what I know, there isn't really a way to do this yet. The second would be to try to migrate all the "serious" users to some other IRC network (a new one perhaps) while leaving behind all the squabbling lusers. Of course, the lusers would hop onto the bandwagon, and we'd be back to square one.
It's tamper-proof. Whenever the battery voltage changes, the SRAM holding the keys clears itself. This has come to be known as "Capcom Suicide."
Seems to make sense. Now I'm curious as to how it can be read by the cps2 board. The SRAM must be read sometime, by the hardware itself. How does that get past the countermeasure?
Why shouldn't it be hard now? Was this a "security through obscurity" thing that is no longer obscure?
Kind of. The problem with solving the encryption algorithm original was that there were no known variables. No one knew wha the encryption system was (still don't), what the encryption keys are (still don't), or what the unencrypted data was. Sort of like doing a jigsaw puzzle with square pieces and know picture on it.
Know that they have the unencrypted data, they at least have the picture on the puzzle, so they can check to see if the methods they try out are close to working or not. Combining that with what they've been able to gather about the encryption scheme anyway, someone should be able to crack it much easier now.
ps: I'm a bit confused as to why they don't know the encryptions keys. Since they're stored in an SRAM chip, should they be able to just read them out?
Now all they need to do is make Everquest for the PS2. Then you could buy a $2000 character to use with your $15k PS2. (perhaps using some of those cool new kidneys, too)
actually I was thinking more of a random visit to a random website - you click on a new link (say in some spam, or as a result of a search from some search engine) to check out a website sight-unseen and suddenly discover yourself bound by some legal agreement you haven't had a chance to read because you've never been there before
Ok, now I can understand what you're talking aobut and agree with you fully. That you should be bound to some agreement that you haven't even seen is silly. On the other hand, bypassing the agreement seems unfair on the maintainer of the website, but the webmaster should be responsible for keeping track of who has 'signed' and agreement and who hasn't. Perhaps webmaster who are seriously concerned about having people stick to their agreements should use a cookie to keep track of who has and who has has not signed an agreement, and whenever they try to access a page, give them the agreement for instead.
(similar to the way you UICTA allows you to be bound to the legal mumbo-jumbo that you can't read in some shrink-wrapped package because it's shrink-wrapped)
In a word, UICTA sounds completely bogus. This kind of quasi-legal reasoning is just silly.
Forget the shrink-wrap license agreement - are we going to find ourselves bound to some bozo's web-site's legal agreement just be clicking into it?
Oh, god forbid anyone in America is ever bound to taking responsibility for his own actions! I can't help it if I want to look at the pretty pr0n. It's freedom of speech, it is! They forced me to click on the license!
The point, if you can't tell I'm being sarcastic, is that no one is forcing you to agree with the term that "some bozo" sets on his website. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't visit the website.
If your neighbor invites you to a party at his house, but wants you to take off your shoes before you enter the house (he just had his carpet cleaned) are you going to yell and scream about free speech and trample on his carpet? No, either you agree with his terms and follow the terms, or you leave the party. It's the same thing with sites. There is no constitutional right that gives you unrestricted access to another's property, material or intellectual. If you want to reap the benefits of another's property, follow the rules. Clicking an agree button is that same as signing a contract.
"Does the government, or any other entity, have the right to control the information passed between two privately owned personal computers?" I say no -- if they suspect a crime, they need a warrant, etc.
I totally agree with the sentiment that what passes over a private network, and in many cases over the internet, should be protected as free speech. You are right is saying "They can get their fscking nose out of my network". However, simply because I agree that pirating (this may not be the right word, but I'll use it anyway) music is morally wrong, that doesn't mean that I advocate any kind of extreme or poorly thought-out measure (which governments are known for) against it.
My main point is that people need to recognize that is wrong to pirate music. Many people try to justifiy copying legally protected materials with false and flawed moralities. I will not try to stop you if you want to trade MP3s, but justifying your action with a flimsy "but I have to, it's Big Brother's fault" morality is ignorant.
But the beauty of the capitalist system is supposed to be that if we don't like the way business X is treating us, we can take our money to business Y. With CDs, however, as the FTC showed, X and Y collaborated to make it so that taking your money elsewhere didn't work
Great King Capitalist (the man who invented capitalism) thought up a solution to the problem of Corporation X and Y collaborating. If you can't tkae your money elsewhere, leave it in ytour pocket. Sure, you have to go without CDs for a while, but if enough people feel strongly about it, the CD comapnies will either change their ways or go out of business. It may not be very fun, but no one made a rule saying the CD companies must produce CDs at a reasonable cost for your enjoyment.
Now, if record companies were forced to sell their commodities to more than one distrubuor -- say, make MP3s a competing medium where the two could go back and forth, we might have something.
Another nice thing about capitalism, is if you don't like way corporation X or Y works, you get to start corporation Z. Get some venture capital, ge contracts with some recording artist, and produce your own MP3 albums. If your way is acutally better, you will win, and CDs will lose.
You see, its OK for the recording industry to screw consumers, but it's not OK for consumers to trade music over the internet because it costs the recording industry too many lost sales. Whatever.
But you don't understand how true this is. It is in fact ok for CD makers to screw cusumers, as much as the consumers (inluding me) may not like it. This is a capitalist society, in which the companies are supossed to look out for their own good, not for ours. They are here to make a buck, not to make us happy.
If you dislike the way a company works, your job is to stop purchasing they're products, which a lot of us have stopped doing.
However: it is not ok in any way to steal intellectual property by trading music over the internet. This analogy is perhaps a strech, but I will make it anyway: Trading MP3s becasue you dislike the high prices of CDs is similar to robbing your local grocery store becasue the price of bread is to high.
Of course, people are bound to argue that you don't actually take anyone's property by trading MP3s, you simple reproduce it. Consider counterfieting money. You don't have to rob anyone to print a bunch of twenty dollar bills for yourself, but it is sitll legally and morally wrong. It may seem silly that you shouldn't copy music that is so poorly secured (the wax lock analogy) but it is still wrong, and does in fact cost the recording companies money to produce CDs. Trading music that you do not own the rights to is damaging, and crimanially so
If you're upset a about the way CD companies treat cunstomers, boscott them, but do not use their high prices as a justification for a criminal act.
That there now exists a Wolf-3d clone for the Palm is no great technical accomplishment, to be sure, but a great gameplay accomplishement? Perhaps...
Yeah, well, my mom has USB! I mean, uh, yo' momma. I mean, um....