But that's not what a democracy means. Democracy means that everyone gets a vote and the government (or whatever the equivalent is in this analogy) is obliged to adopt that decision.
I've never voted for how the Linux kernel or any other open source project should work. I wouldn't be surprised if there was never a binding vote on any open source project. If I can leave and set up my own fork, that doesn't make it a democracy. In fact, the government analogy falls down entirely.
Proprietary consumer software is closer to a democracy. The design decisions made are based on an estimate of what the majority want. Companies use focus groups which will give a fairly good approximation of majority preference. This is why, for example, MS improved the boot speed for Windows XP. The majority wanted it.
Thing is, in most cases, you'd need to be pretty naive not to know about it. I'm quite happy that just about any creative work I've ever worked on (at least the for-profit ones) has belonged to the company I worked for. That was pretty clear implicitly from the start.
it's even worse than not being able to watch DVDs on your Wii's DVD drive..
Is this actually a problem for anyone? Who owns a Wii, doesn't own a DVD player but has a desire to play DVDs? DVD players are so cheap you just go and buy one.
Yes, Google could have essentially the same effect (apart from the extra administrative overhead) if they set up a company called "Google Fiber", and leased the network to Google.com. But "Google Fiber" would essentially have considerable debts that would need to be recovered. Now, they'd have borrowed the money from Google.com, rather than a bank because Google.com has lots of money, but Google could have loaned that money to someone else. The cost of running the network is essentially the amount they could have gained from using the money for some other purpose. Capital doesn't just sit in the bank if it isn't being used.
No doubt the cost of leasing would be greater than the return they could have made on this money otherwise, which is why Google invested this money. It doesn't make the bandwidth "free" though.
I would imagine, though, that commercial real estate agencies might own their own offices.
No. The letting company might though.
but my guess is that most fishermen own theirs.
I don't know about that. Airlines typically lease their aircraft though.
you may want to consider the industry that Google is in, and why having the physical infrastructure of an internet service provider might be of use to a company that provides services over the internet.
They're not in the network industry. They're in the service provision industry. The network is simply a cost. If it's a capital cost or a running (i.e. lease) cost it's still a cost. I'm not disputing Google's decision. They presumably have accountants who have worked all this out. Just pointing out that the accountants would have factored in the capital cost as equivalent to running costs.
Almost all companies lease their offices. They could buy them and save rent. It would possibly be cheaper. They don;t though. They don't want all that capital tied up in property. They can use it for business expansion instead.
So Google owns a bunch of fibre. This has a capital cost. That's money that could have been invested somewhere else, so it's not free. They could have leased the fibre from a third party. Presumably they worked out that it would be cheaper not to do this. They could probably have saved money by leasing bandwidth from a third party. The third party would then be able to amortise the costs over several customers if there's surplus bandwidth. Having capital tied up like this isn't "free".
I don;t want the web on my TV
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, I have a computer to do that. It's a laptop. I just put it away when I'm done with it. I don't interrupt the viewing of everyone else in my household. I don't want a lot of applications either. Computers run them well enough.
Streaming TV, and possibly youtube might work, but we don't need anything as sophisticated or complicated as a general purpose computer for those.
Th industry too lazy to change? Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?
That's up to them. Maybe their business model is no longer viable. Nobody is forcing them to create content.
The marketplace has changed. People want free content and have the ability to get it. It's a lot easier to change a business model than human nature. Complaining at us for not changing isn;t going to change us. Personally I like getting stuff for free.
What's wrong wit reading, or playing sports, or countless other things you could do rather than play games?
Absolutely nothing. Lots of people still enjoy these activities and there's a market for them.
Similarly there's nothing wrong with joypads. Many people find joypad based games are tremendous fun and always will. Some people will enjoy motion control based games even more. Joypads aren't going away any time soon. This just offers more choice.
The problem is that the movie cartels don't want to compete with themselves. They don't care which one you buy as long as you give them the money. Although considering the retailer markup it does seem strange that they're not able to offer these for a little less.
"or if the system was able to track the controller that accurately, and was able to 'connect the dots' from when his body briefly occluded the wand to when it reappeared."
Honestly, if it can't do this to some degree then it's a pretty rubbish system. You'll need some form of motion prediction just to get stable tracking in a computer vision system. It may have been a preset combo still but this sort of tracking is pretty well understood and Sony do have some bright guys doing computer vision.
It always makes me sad to see this sort of cynical comment.
Others have pointed out that the tax deductions aren't the reason. Obviously - Bill Gates gives a much larger portion of his income away than his rivals in richest man stakes. If there was a tax advantage they'd be doing the same thing.
I don't see why people do want to doubt his intentions? Once you have a net worth in the billions, money is meaningless. As (oil tycoon) H.L Hunt put it, "Money is just a way of keeping score". Bill Gates has managed to get the high score on that game. Why would he want to keep playing? Why not try to do something good for the world? It seems the worst that can be said for Bill Gates is that he's trying to out-altruistic everyone else. I have no problem at all with billionaires trying to one-up each other this way.
Really the point is that this isn't aimed at a typical desktop user. A lot of the applications that this will be used for will easily use 12 threads. I know our 4 core i7 is great for compiling and our project is relatively small. Probably pretty good for rendering as well.
The pirate part is never going to get a seat in a British election (without major electoral reform). They know this. Single policy parties exist because of the spoiler effect. The people who think copyright reform is the single most important issue will vote Pirate. It's up to the other parties to soften their stance a little to make this more palatable to the voters.
Okay. Maybe not the best example but still sort of illustrates the point:) They excuse the evidence that suggests God isn't looking out for them and reinterpret it to fit their existing beliefs.
I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle (or whatever it is that makes the money).
Oh yes. There's a lot of psychology on the subject. Confirmation bias - people assign more weight to evidence that supports their prejudices. For example, if someone survives a major disaster, religious types will point to the miracle, whereas if someone is killed in improbable circumstances, few religious types will give God the credit for that one.
You even see the same ting with climate change deniers, and people who justify unhealthy behaviour on account of debunked research showing it's healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not what a democracy means. Democracy means that everyone gets a vote and the government (or whatever the equivalent is in this analogy) is obliged to adopt that decision.
I've never voted for how the Linux kernel or any other open source project should work. I wouldn't be surprised if there was never a binding vote on any open source project. If I can leave and set up my own fork, that doesn't make it a democracy. In fact, the government analogy falls down entirely.
Proprietary consumer software is closer to a democracy. The design decisions made are based on an estimate of what the majority want. Companies use focus groups which will give a fairly good approximation of majority preference. This is why, for example, MS improved the boot speed for Windows XP. The majority wanted it.
Thing is, in most cases, you'd need to be pretty naive not to know about it. I'm quite happy that just about any creative work I've ever worked on (at least the for-profit ones) has belonged to the company I worked for. That was pretty clear implicitly from the start.
it's even worse than not being able to watch DVDs on your Wii's DVD drive..
Is this actually a problem for anyone? Who owns a Wii, doesn't own a DVD player but has a desire to play DVDs? DVD players are so cheap you just go and buy one.
Beside the point though.
The point is that buying has a cost, not that the cost is never worth it.
Does it cost anyone anything to send data over everyone else's lines? I thought this was the principle of the entire internet.
Yes, Google could have essentially the same effect (apart from the extra administrative overhead) if they set up a company called "Google Fiber", and leased the network to Google.com. But "Google Fiber" would essentially have considerable debts that would need to be recovered. Now, they'd have borrowed the money from Google.com, rather than a bank because Google.com has lots of money, but Google could have loaned that money to someone else. The cost of running the network is essentially the amount they could have gained from using the money for some other purpose. Capital doesn't just sit in the bank if it isn't being used.
No doubt the cost of leasing would be greater than the return they could have made on this money otherwise, which is why Google invested this money. It doesn't make the bandwidth "free" though.
I would imagine, though, that commercial real estate agencies might own their own offices.
No. The letting company might though.
but my guess is that most fishermen own theirs.
I don't know about that. Airlines typically lease their aircraft though.
you may want to consider the industry that Google is in, and why having the physical infrastructure of an internet service provider might be of use to a company that provides services over the internet.
They're not in the network industry. They're in the service provision industry. The network is simply a cost. If it's a capital cost or a running (i.e. lease) cost it's still a cost. I'm not disputing Google's decision. They presumably have accountants who have worked all this out. Just pointing out that the accountants would have factored in the capital cost as equivalent to running costs.
Almost all companies lease their offices. They could buy them and save rent. It would possibly be cheaper. They don;t though. They don't want all that capital tied up in property. They can use it for business expansion instead.
So Google owns a bunch of fibre. This has a capital cost. That's money that could have been invested somewhere else, so it's not free. They could have leased the fibre from a third party. Presumably they worked out that it would be cheaper not to do this. They could probably have saved money by leasing bandwidth from a third party. The third party would then be able to amortise the costs over several customers if there's surplus bandwidth. Having capital tied up like this isn't "free".
Seriously, I have a computer to do that. It's a laptop. I just put it away when I'm done with it. I don't interrupt the viewing of everyone else in my household. I don't want a lot of applications either. Computers run them well enough.
Streaming TV, and possibly youtube might work, but we don't need anything as sophisticated or complicated as a general purpose computer for those.
Decent writing might help as well. In my experience, dialogue is written by game designers. Writing dialogue is not always their main talent.
Th industry too lazy to change? Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?
That's up to them. Maybe their business model is no longer viable. Nobody is forcing them to create content.
The marketplace has changed. People want free content and have the ability to get it. It's a lot easier to change a business model than human nature. Complaining at us for not changing isn;t going to change us. Personally I like getting stuff for free.
Fixed what? I mean it's not like your change has shown what I said to be wrong. Shafting early adopters promotes economic growth.
Yes, early adopters often get shafted. Rapid obsolescence is one of the costs of the bleeding edge.
What's wrong wit reading, or playing sports, or countless other things you could do rather than play games?
Absolutely nothing. Lots of people still enjoy these activities and there's a market for them.
Similarly there's nothing wrong with joypads. Many people find joypad based games are tremendous fun and always will. Some people will enjoy motion control based games even more. Joypads aren't going away any time soon. This just offers more choice.
The problem is that the movie cartels don't want to compete with themselves. They don't care which one you buy as long as you give them the money. Although considering the retailer markup it does seem strange that they're not able to offer these for a little less.
DirectInput, DirectSound and Direct3D don't require each other. You can replace any of these components without affecting the others.
And I've yet to see a PC that doesn't support OpenGL.
And why so dismissive of Pro gear? This is a decent sized market.
"or if the system was able to track the controller that accurately, and was able to 'connect the dots' from when his body briefly occluded the wand to when it reappeared."
Honestly, if it can't do this to some degree then it's a pretty rubbish system. You'll need some form of motion prediction just to get stable tracking in a computer vision system. It may have been a preset combo still but this sort of tracking is pretty well understood and Sony do have some bright guys doing computer vision.
It always makes me sad to see this sort of cynical comment.
Others have pointed out that the tax deductions aren't the reason. Obviously - Bill Gates gives a much larger portion of his income away than his rivals in richest man stakes. If there was a tax advantage they'd be doing the same thing.
I don't see why people do want to doubt his intentions? Once you have a net worth in the billions, money is meaningless. As (oil tycoon) H.L Hunt put it, "Money is just a way of keeping score". Bill Gates has managed to get the high score on that game. Why would he want to keep playing? Why not try to do something good for the world? It seems the worst that can be said for Bill Gates is that he's trying to out-altruistic everyone else. I have no problem at all with billionaires trying to one-up each other this way.
Really the point is that this isn't aimed at a typical desktop user. A lot of the applications that this will be used for will easily use 12 threads. I know our 4 core i7 is great for compiling and our project is relatively small. Probably pretty good for rendering as well.
Yes, but the problem with the alternative is that most people (including me) are stupid. Everyone wants lower taxes and more spending.
The pirate part is never going to get a seat in a British election (without major electoral reform). They know this. Single policy parties exist because of the spoiler effect. The people who think copyright reform is the single most important issue will vote Pirate. It's up to the other parties to soften their stance a little to make this more palatable to the voters.
Wow! Some of the fanboyism in that thread is amazing!
"If everyone could please be patient, theres not need to be mad at ubisoft about this."
Why not? Isn't it their fault?
Just think how rich you'd be if you had the patent on being dumb!
Okay. Maybe not the best example but still sort of illustrates the point:) They excuse the evidence that suggests God isn't looking out for them and reinterpret it to fit their existing beliefs.
I strongly suspect that people are more likely to believe things that do not challenge/threaten their current lifestyle (or whatever it is that makes the money).
Oh yes. There's a lot of psychology on the subject. Confirmation bias - people assign more weight to evidence that supports their prejudices. For example, if someone survives a major disaster, religious types will point to the miracle, whereas if someone is killed in improbable circumstances, few religious types will give God the credit for that one.
You even see the same ting with climate change deniers, and people who justify unhealthy behaviour on account of debunked research showing it's healthy.