I responded to another person who had already responded to me, but I'll try to summarize that post here...
If client1 requests a file from me, I don't think I am copying the requested file anymore than I would be if I checked out a book. Follow this....
When someone reads a book, what's happening? The book is open, light is reflecting off the print allowing the person reading to see the words and comprehend/memorize them. If they write down what they see, verbatim, it's illegal. When someone request a file from me, I send them the data inside the file. It's their option whether or not they write that data down. Granted KaZaA, along with every other P2P app out there, does it automatically. My server isn't copying the file, anymore than light is copying the book. It's a sketchy argument, and it may not hold up because people in the legal profession aren't computer scientists and won't understand bit streams or data flow. However, that doesn't mean that people posting these files on their own machines should be guilty of something they aren't doing.
Also, you absolutely have the right to display a copyrighted work on your lawn...if I choose to stand in my front yard and read the contents of a book, that's my perrogative and NOT considered a public performance.
Okay, after more thought about whether or not the server is making the copy or not, I have a rebuttle (sorry for replying twice).
I don't think the server *is* making a copy. When someone uses KaZaA to download a song from another user, what happens? Client1 requests data from client2, client2 responds with packets, client1 writes data to file on hard drive. The closest analogy I have is this: if I display a book in my front yard,(let's assume it's dark and I have a spotlight pointing at the book) you can read the printed words. Instead of packets of data, your eye interprets the light reflecting off of the printed words as data and stores it in your brain. Analogous to a library, only your brain probably doesn't have the storage capabilities that a computer has.
Client1's request is analogous to your looking at the book. Client2's response with data is effectively my book being placed in a lit spot so that light is able to bounce off the words. Client1's writing the data to disk is your brain committing the words to memory, or at least comprehending them.
The RIAA is saying that even though I own the book, I must keep it in a dark room and permit no candles/lamps/lights in, except for my own. To refute the argument of the book being either in or out, what if I check a book out, walk of the library and then read it out loud? Isn't everyone gaining the same information that I am? Please don't bring up pictures or the physical feel of the book, it's the information we're interested in. Were I reading it out loud to 10 people with photographic (audiophonic?) memories, what's the difference?
Oh, I freely admit to illegal activity...everytime I download something I haven't bought. I will, however, offer up my files to other people who have lost their copy of a CD (as I have many, many times...I've bought 4 copies of "Jar of Flies" because I've either lost it, had it stolen or given it to a friend) and want to replace the music they legally bought.
It's wrong to make something illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. I don't feel like we should even have to lock up our guns to prevent morons from shooting people with them, but since that's a loss of life I can understand the claim of liability. Most of us think it's assanine to sue the gunmakers, or hold liable the man whose house was broken into and his gun stolen, when someone shoots another person with said gun. I think it's assanine to hold liable the person with music on their computer, when it's someone else getting a copy. The RIAA is taking the easy way out, since it would be nearly impossible to investigate whether the person downloading does have a legal right to the downloaded content.
I'm not talking about the downloading process, I'm talking about the copying process. Nobody can refute that the download process is illegal because at that point you are actually committing the crime of illegally copying copyrighted material. However, making files publicly available is *not* illegal. They're *my* files, I can do whatever I want with them; I can keep them hidden, I can display them on my front lawn, I can display them on the Internet.
The single copy comparison doesn't work as well, as you pointed out, because once a book leaves the library it's physically gone. But the comparison between in-house use is flawless, as far as I can tell.
Public libraries make books easily available to the masses...these works are legal for them to own, but they are copyrighted and it is illegal for someone to copy them verbatim. If someone did that, the person who copied the book is held liable, not the library.
This is absolutely true. I got my girlfriend into playing Morrowind because I had just built her a computer and we sat around playing it one night, she was on hers and I was on mine, and talking over our shoulders about what we were doing. If you can add social interraction to something, you can get girls interested in it.
Congress is told by the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) that file trading is theft. In reality the P2P services bring balance to a system long unfairly tilted to favor the supplier.
In reality, file trading is *still* theft because you're breaching the artist's copyright. He's comparing apples and oranges...music is a personally created work of art which is copyrightable. Diamonds are a naturally occuring deposit that just happen to be horded by one relatively nasty company. While I agree the two bare striking resemblances in their distribution models (read: iron fisted), that's where it ends.
The hullabaloo over file sharing is that, since music can be digitized, it can be easily replicated. We all realize by now that the reason P2P is succeeding is because it came up with a more convenient, but less secure, form of distribution. The RIAA's argument is that because music can be duplicated, they will lose the group of customers who would noramlly all individually buy an item but who instead buy one and dupe. A parallel would be DeBeers, had they created the Hope Diamond, getting pissed because someone was able to replicate it and sell it for $5 on the street.
That's not the case, this company is creating new diamonds (parallel: independant artists) that will use the same distribution model (retail sale, more than likely) as DeBeers. The only person who should be getting pissed in all cases is the owner of the original work, which for music is the copyright holder, with diamonds it's God (or, for you scientists, Mr. Pressure). I don't think God (or pressure, for that matter) cares.
It still infuriates both DeBeers and the RIAA, so I understand the comparison, but please don't argue that new, cheap diamonds are the same as P2P. One's legal, one's not (in most cases).
I'm still not convinced we're that important. the Earth has been around for millions of years, I seriously doubt that anything that bad can be caused by its inhabitants. The worst thing that I feel could happen is it becomes less livable for as many humans as we try to cram on it. Eventually, some people get killed off. That's alright with me, I call it 'reaching equilibrium'.
They would also create huge in-game inflation. Granted, if they did it all in one fell swoop (say, over 2-3 days) they could get away with it, but I'm sure the company would find out, crack down, fire them and remove the money to return the in-game economy to normal.
The same thing could happen in the real world...that's why the treasury is so closely monitored. Old bills are burned and new bills are minted (printed), the quantities are controlled so as not to cause massive inflation.
Something I've missed from all the reviews, and it probably won't get answered here because I'm posting a day after the/. post came out, but what happened to force sensitivity? I haven't seen a single article talkin about a character that has force powers. Wasn't this a 'Big Deal' for this game? The ability to mix Jedi Knight style gameplay with a MMORPG?
I've never played SWG, but if I did I would like to see at least a few Jedi out there. I don't care if I'm *not* one, the ability to hunt Jedi is just as cool as the ability to be one.
The problem with CDRW is that when you take the discs to other computers, writing on them requires a CDRW drive. I thought about this too, I use the tiny (220Mb?) CDs to carry stuff to work since they fit in my shirt pocket, but I can't transfer anything from work to home because of no burner at work.
Ideally, I would like to find a USB type drive that's cheap, then buy two of them...one for work, one for home. Any suggestions here?
What really bugs me is that if they weren't using MSN, they'd probably be using email. It's futile, really.
I disagree. We can't use IM here at work (well, we could use MSN, but we all like AIM too much and don't really care to switch) and it does restrict what we say in emails because...
1) Emails get logged in at least three places...your computer, the recipient(s) computer, the server. Possibly a router log too, depending. 2) IMs will only get logged going across a router. I'm sure someone keeps a router log, but the reality is that even if they are keeping a log, getting to it would suck. I'm a subcontractor to a contractor for the government, I can't tell you how many layers of management there are betwee me and someone who would care if I IM'd another person about how much works blows.
We email each other pithy comments and such, but they're definitely cleaned up. If nothing else, all those sites featuring misdirected company emails are enough to persuade me not to do it.
Actually, in some ways I agree. I enjoy wearing ties to semi-formal occasions as I feel it fits the event, but I wouldn't choose to just sit around the house in one. That's the problem I have with wearing them to work...there's really not a big difference between a developer sitting in his cube hacking out code and me sitting around the house watching tv. Whatever makes you comfortable is the way to go, so if you're comfortable sitting straight up, go for it...not me though.
I always thought it wasn't the sharing of files that was illegal, but the downloading of them. I would still contest, to the death (or until they lock me up) that I can have any files I damn well please shared under Kazaa, Limewire, etc, it's when someone downloads them that *they're* doing something illegal. This is comparable to someone walking in your wide open front door and taking your backup cds...then *you* get sued for it. Utter bullshit.
--trb
Re:Dean for President
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've gotta side with Adrian on this one, both in his interpretation of the asinine internet ideology and his comments about PhD holders.
IMun-PhDO, the internet was and always has been about establishing the easiest means of connectivity between two points. Since a nuclear bomb could render NYC a void, being able to route around that problem is essential, so the internet is a redundant network. Free speech was a benefit, only because...
1) Suddenly you could talk to groups of people easily, in open forums or on your personal webpage
2) in the early days, nobody cared what the people on the internet were saying, because the people on the internet weren't a large enough body to sway opinion, nor were they the people in power. had certain people had foresight, would it have grown the same way? doubtful.
Arguing that the internet is any sort of ideological being is pointless, it's the content that makes it ideological. The internet itself is just a network, built to ensure communication between point A and point B.
An attacker with three or more attacking armies rolls three dice, one with two armies rolls two dice, and one with only one army rolls one die. A defender with two or more armies rolls two dice, and one with one army rolls one die.
Already, they're wrong...as an attacker, you have to have more armies than dice, i.e. you have to have 4 armies to roll 3 dice. The article already lost my confidence, every true Risk player knows this.
Okay, you're not directly contradicting yourself, but read the following two sections of your rant.
1. No self respecting geek would use Napster EVER, no one I know ever touched it, and we all downloaded MP3's *like a champ*.
2. Napster single handedly brought piracy to the masses
Apparently, you don't know anyone in the 'masses'. I happen to be a self-respecting geek and I *did* use Napster, in college, when it first came out. I still use Kazaa and Limewire, depending on what I'm looking for.
I cant believe that this story was intro'd like this. Napster is, was and always will be a blight and a bad bad period in mine and others opinions.
Okay, the same thing you criticize him for you then do *yourself* later in the same sentence. Don't make sweeping generalizations, especially since we've seen plenty posts on Slashdot (good representation of the geek community) stating the opposite.
No, you're wrong, this is nothing like fascism. Two airports changed names in recognition of a job well done by their new namesakes. First off, both men were out of office when it happened. Second, they didn't commission these airports to be renamed. If they had required airports or cities to be renamed or status built of themselves, while in office, then I would say we would be approaching fascism. As it stands, we are soundly democratic still.
I'll give you that Bush Sr. was a mediocre president, but I don't think you understand the impact Reagan had on every American life. While his spending may have caused the recession we saw at the end of the 80's, it still did more good than bad. Military spending went through the roof, providing not only jobs but opportunities and funding for research. If you have a computer related job now, chances are it came out of the advancement of using computers for military work in the 80's. Surely all the DoD jobs were fueled by Reagan's administration.
I think you're taking a bit too much of a liberal slant on this...give credit where it's due.
Actually, it's not a bad idea. What's the punishment for committing crimes in the real world? Depending on the crime, it ranges from fines to jailtime to death. Why not have the equivalent? Fines would be the same, charge the user's account. Jail time would be expulsion from the server for a limited time (say, a week, or a month). Death would be expulsion from the game, period. I'm not saying a 1-1 correlation for in game/real life should exist (since PKing is a very popular action in MUD type worlds), but a system like that could be easily developed.
Please timewarp to 1977 and ask any lay person what an operating system is. Now fast forward back to today and ask the same question. I guarantee a different response, and it will probably include Windows (as opposed to the 1977 response of "Huh?"). Microsoft brought the operating system to the public, we now see commercials every hour about WinXP. Because of the DOJ prosecution, we heard a LOT about MS's OS.
Yes, OS's have existed for a very, very long time, but MS brought the OS (well, really, the GUI to the OS) into the public's view. And while I don't think I need to mention it, your example is a textbook...exactly what this thread is about. People who study in their fields *should* know the jargon, but the layperson shouldn't.
Absolutely true. Using a Nintendon game as the antithesis to SMB, look at Mega Man. For the most part (other than some different weapons) each Mega Man is the same. The controls are the same, the enemies are, for the most part, the same. I could just as easily play MM1 as MM3 or 4. Don't get me wrong, I love the games, but they're copies of each other. If you own one, you have played them all (at least, through the first 5).
SMB had completely different controls. Yes, there was jumping, running fast, etc, but for instance...in 1 you couldn't manipulate yourself in the air, in 2 you had 4 different characters with 4 different jumping abilities, in 3 you could control your fall and slow descent with a tail. I can safely say that I enjoyed SMB3 more than the others, and can give clear distinctions why.
They also had completely different plots. The first and second were linear, with warps. The third was linear but gave you different paths to follow if you wanted. The play differed so much you would have hardly been able to tell they were sequels except the characters were the same.
That's what he's talking about. There's no sense in remaking a game with different graphics and new weapons, it's the rut we're currently stuck in with FPS's and MMORPGs. While sticking to a basic theme (fun, cartoony characters), innovation is what has kept Nintendo a favorite.
Slashdot Mirror
I responded to another person who had already responded to me, but I'll try to summarize that post here...
If client1 requests a file from me, I don't think I am copying the requested file anymore than I would be if I checked out a book. Follow this....
When someone reads a book, what's happening? The book is open, light is reflecting off the print allowing the person reading to see the words and comprehend/memorize them. If they write down what they see, verbatim, it's illegal. When someone request a file from me, I send them the data inside the file. It's their option whether or not they write that data down. Granted KaZaA, along with every other P2P app out there, does it automatically. My server isn't copying the file, anymore than light is copying the book. It's a sketchy argument, and it may not hold up because people in the legal profession aren't computer scientists and won't understand bit streams or data flow. However, that doesn't mean that people posting these files on their own machines should be guilty of something they aren't doing.
Also, you absolutely have the right to display a copyrighted work on your lawn...if I choose to stand in my front yard and read the contents of a book, that's my perrogative and NOT considered a public performance.
--trb
Okay, after more thought about whether or not the server is making the copy or not, I have a rebuttle (sorry for replying twice).
I don't think the server *is* making a copy. When someone uses KaZaA to download a song from another user, what happens? Client1 requests data from client2, client2 responds with packets, client1 writes data to file on hard drive. The closest analogy I have is this: if I display a book in my front yard,(let's assume it's dark and I have a spotlight pointing at the book) you can read the printed words. Instead of packets of data, your eye interprets the light reflecting off of the printed words as data and stores it in your brain. Analogous to a library, only your brain probably doesn't have the storage capabilities that a computer has.
Client1's request is analogous to your looking at the book. Client2's response with data is effectively my book being placed in a lit spot so that light is able to bounce off the words. Client1's writing the data to disk is your brain committing the words to memory, or at least comprehending them.
The RIAA is saying that even though I own the book, I must keep it in a dark room and permit no candles/lamps/lights in, except for my own. To refute the argument of the book being either in or out, what if I check a book out, walk of the library and then read it out loud? Isn't everyone gaining the same information that I am? Please don't bring up pictures or the physical feel of the book, it's the information we're interested in. Were I reading it out loud to 10 people with photographic (audiophonic?) memories, what's the difference?
--trb
Oh, I freely admit to illegal activity...everytime I download something I haven't bought. I will, however, offer up my files to other people who have lost their copy of a CD (as I have many, many times...I've bought 4 copies of "Jar of Flies" because I've either lost it, had it stolen or given it to a friend) and want to replace the music they legally bought.
It's wrong to make something illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. I don't feel like we should even have to lock up our guns to prevent morons from shooting people with them, but since that's a loss of life I can understand the claim of liability. Most of us think it's assanine to sue the gunmakers, or hold liable the man whose house was broken into and his gun stolen, when someone shoots another person with said gun. I think it's assanine to hold liable the person with music on their computer, when it's someone else getting a copy. The RIAA is taking the easy way out, since it would be nearly impossible to investigate whether the person downloading does have a legal right to the downloaded content.
--trb
I'm not talking about the downloading process, I'm talking about the copying process. Nobody can refute that the download process is illegal because at that point you are actually committing the crime of illegally copying copyrighted material. However, making files publicly available is *not* illegal. They're *my* files, I can do whatever I want with them; I can keep them hidden, I can display them on my front lawn, I can display them on the Internet.
The single copy comparison doesn't work as well, as you pointed out, because once a book leaves the library it's physically gone. But the comparison between in-house use is flawless, as far as I can tell.
--trb
Public libraries make books easily available to the masses...these works are legal for them to own, but they are copyrighted and it is illegal for someone to copy them verbatim. If someone did that, the person who copied the book is held liable, not the library.
Show me the difference.
Cue TNT running 'Total Recall' at least once a week for the next few months...
--trb
This is absolutely true. I got my girlfriend into playing Morrowind because I had just built her a computer and we sat around playing it one night, she was on hers and I was on mine, and talking over our shoulders about what we were doing. If you can add social interraction to something, you can get girls interested in it.
--trb
Congress is told by the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) that file trading is theft. In reality the P2P services bring balance to a system long unfairly tilted to favor the supplier.
In reality, file trading is *still* theft because you're breaching the artist's copyright. He's comparing apples and oranges...music is a personally created work of art which is copyrightable. Diamonds are a naturally occuring deposit that just happen to be horded by one relatively nasty company. While I agree the two bare striking resemblances in their distribution models (read: iron fisted), that's where it ends.
The hullabaloo over file sharing is that, since music can be digitized, it can be easily replicated. We all realize by now that the reason P2P is succeeding is because it came up with a more convenient, but less secure, form of distribution. The RIAA's argument is that because music can be duplicated, they will lose the group of customers who would noramlly all individually buy an item but who instead buy one and dupe. A parallel would be DeBeers, had they created the Hope Diamond, getting pissed because someone was able to replicate it and sell it for $5 on the street.
That's not the case, this company is creating new diamonds (parallel: independant artists) that will use the same distribution model (retail sale, more than likely) as DeBeers. The only person who should be getting pissed in all cases is the owner of the original work, which for music is the copyright holder, with diamonds it's God (or, for you scientists, Mr. Pressure). I don't think God (or pressure, for that matter) cares.
It still infuriates both DeBeers and the RIAA, so I understand the comparison, but please don't argue that new, cheap diamonds are the same as P2P. One's legal, one's not (in most cases).
--trb
That and Duke Nukem Forever.
Whoa, slow down there hoss...
--trb
I'm still not convinced we're that important. the Earth has been around for millions of years, I seriously doubt that anything that bad can be caused by its inhabitants. The worst thing that I feel could happen is it becomes less livable for as many humans as we try to cram on it. Eventually, some people get killed off. That's alright with me, I call it 'reaching equilibrium'.
--trb
They would also create huge in-game inflation. Granted, if they did it all in one fell swoop (say, over 2-3 days) they could get away with it, but I'm sure the company would find out, crack down, fire them and remove the money to return the in-game economy to normal.
The same thing could happen in the real world...that's why the treasury is so closely monitored. Old bills are burned and new bills are minted (printed), the quantities are controlled so as not to cause massive inflation.
-trb
Something I've missed from all the reviews, and it probably won't get answered here because I'm posting a day after the /. post came out, but what happened to force sensitivity? I haven't seen a single article talkin about a character that has force powers. Wasn't this a 'Big Deal' for this game? The ability to mix Jedi Knight style gameplay with a MMORPG?
I've never played SWG, but if I did I would like to see at least a few Jedi out there. I don't care if I'm *not* one, the ability to hunt Jedi is just as cool as the ability to be one.
--trb
The problem with CDRW is that when you take the discs to other computers, writing on them requires a CDRW drive. I thought about this too, I use the tiny (220Mb?) CDs to carry stuff to work since they fit in my shirt pocket, but I can't transfer anything from work to home because of no burner at work.
Ideally, I would like to find a USB type drive that's cheap, then buy two of them...one for work, one for home. Any suggestions here?
--trb
What really bugs me is that if they weren't using MSN, they'd probably be using email. It's futile, really.
I disagree. We can't use IM here at work (well, we could use MSN, but we all like AIM too much and don't really care to switch) and it does restrict what we say in emails because...
1) Emails get logged in at least three places...your computer, the recipient(s) computer, the server. Possibly a router log too, depending.
2) IMs will only get logged going across a router. I'm sure someone keeps a router log, but the reality is that even if they are keeping a log, getting to it would suck. I'm a subcontractor to a contractor for the government, I can't tell you how many layers of management there are betwee me and someone who would care if I IM'd another person about how much works blows.
We email each other pithy comments and such, but they're definitely cleaned up. If nothing else, all those sites featuring misdirected company emails are enough to persuade me not to do it.
--trb
Actually, in some ways I agree. I enjoy wearing ties to semi-formal occasions as I feel it fits the event, but I wouldn't choose to just sit around the house in one. That's the problem I have with wearing them to work...there's really not a big difference between a developer sitting in his cube hacking out code and me sitting around the house watching tv. Whatever makes you comfortable is the way to go, so if you're comfortable sitting straight up, go for it...not me though.
--trb
I always thought it wasn't the sharing of files that was illegal, but the downloading of them. I would still contest, to the death (or until they lock me up) that I can have any files I damn well please shared under Kazaa, Limewire, etc, it's when someone downloads them that *they're* doing something illegal. This is comparable to someone walking in your wide open front door and taking your backup cds...then *you* get sued for it. Utter bullshit.
--trb
I've gotta side with Adrian on this one, both in his interpretation of the asinine internet ideology and his comments about PhD holders.
IMun-PhDO, the internet was and always has been about establishing the easiest means of connectivity between two points. Since a nuclear bomb could render NYC a void, being able to route around that problem is essential, so the internet is a redundant network. Free speech was a benefit, only because...
1) Suddenly you could talk to groups of people easily, in open forums or on your personal webpage
2) in the early days, nobody cared what the people on the internet were saying, because the people on the internet weren't a large enough body to sway opinion, nor were they the people in power. had certain people had foresight, would it have grown the same way? doubtful.
Arguing that the internet is any sort of ideological being is pointless, it's the content that makes it ideological. The internet itself is just a network, built to ensure communication between point A and point B.
--trb
An attacker with three or more attacking armies rolls three dice, one with two armies rolls two dice, and one with only one army rolls one die. A defender with two or more armies rolls two dice, and one with one army rolls one die.
Already, they're wrong...as an attacker, you have to have more armies than dice, i.e. you have to have 4 armies to roll 3 dice. The article already lost my confidence, every true Risk player knows this.
--trb
Okay, you're not directly contradicting yourself, but read the following two sections of your rant.
1. No self respecting geek would use Napster EVER, no one I know ever touched it, and we all downloaded MP3's *like a champ*.
2. Napster single handedly brought piracy to the masses
Apparently, you don't know anyone in the 'masses'. I happen to be a self-respecting geek and I *did* use Napster, in college, when it first came out. I still use Kazaa and Limewire, depending on what I'm looking for.
I cant believe that this story was intro'd like this. Napster is, was and always will be a blight and a bad bad period in mine and others opinions.
Okay, the same thing you criticize him for you then do *yourself* later in the same sentence. Don't make sweeping generalizations, especially since we've seen plenty posts on Slashdot (good representation of the geek community) stating the opposite.
--trb
Where will the main story be located and will the player be able to pick multiple races?
[...] It also allows the PC to plausibly be any of the races we are allowing the player to pick.
That's good...I like being able to play whatever race I pick.
Player: I wanna play a diseased rat
Fallout3: Nope, sorry, just because it's an option doesn't mean you get to pick it!
--trb
No, you're wrong, this is nothing like fascism. Two airports changed names in recognition of a job well done by their new namesakes. First off, both men were out of office when it happened. Second, they didn't commission these airports to be renamed. If they had required airports or cities to be renamed or status built of themselves, while in office, then I would say we would be approaching fascism. As it stands, we are soundly democratic still.
I'll give you that Bush Sr. was a mediocre president, but I don't think you understand the impact Reagan had on every American life. While his spending may have caused the recession we saw at the end of the 80's, it still did more good than bad. Military spending went through the roof, providing not only jobs but opportunities and funding for research. If you have a computer related job now, chances are it came out of the advancement of using computers for military work in the 80's. Surely all the DoD jobs were fueled by Reagan's administration.
I think you're taking a bit too much of a liberal slant on this...give credit where it's due.
--trb
To quote Calvin, "I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists out there is that it hasn't tried to contact us yet."
--trb
Actually, it's not a bad idea. What's the punishment for committing crimes in the real world? Depending on the crime, it ranges from fines to jailtime to death. Why not have the equivalent? Fines would be the same, charge the user's account. Jail time would be expulsion from the server for a limited time (say, a week, or a month). Death would be expulsion from the game, period. I'm not saying a 1-1 correlation for in game/real life should exist (since PKing is a very popular action in MUD type worlds), but a system like that could be easily developed.
--trb
Please timewarp to 1977 and ask any lay person what an operating system is. Now fast forward back to today and ask the same question. I guarantee a different response, and it will probably include Windows (as opposed to the 1977 response of "Huh?"). Microsoft brought the operating system to the public, we now see commercials every hour about WinXP. Because of the DOJ prosecution, we heard a LOT about MS's OS.
Yes, OS's have existed for a very, very long time, but MS brought the OS (well, really, the GUI to the OS) into the public's view. And while I don't think I need to mention it, your example is a textbook...exactly what this thread is about. People who study in their fields *should* know the jargon, but the layperson shouldn't.
--trb
Absolutely true. Using a Nintendon game as the antithesis to SMB, look at Mega Man. For the most part (other than some different weapons) each Mega Man is the same. The controls are the same, the enemies are, for the most part, the same. I could just as easily play MM1 as MM3 or 4. Don't get me wrong, I love the games, but they're copies of each other. If you own one, you have played them all (at least, through the first 5).
SMB had completely different controls. Yes, there was jumping, running fast, etc, but for instance...in 1 you couldn't manipulate yourself in the air, in 2 you had 4 different characters with 4 different jumping abilities, in 3 you could control your fall and slow descent with a tail. I can safely say that I enjoyed SMB3 more than the others, and can give clear distinctions why.
They also had completely different plots. The first and second were linear, with warps. The third was linear but gave you different paths to follow if you wanted. The play differed so much you would have hardly been able to tell they were sequels except the characters were the same.
That's what he's talking about. There's no sense in remaking a game with different graphics and new weapons, it's the rut we're currently stuck in with FPS's and MMORPGs. While sticking to a basic theme (fun, cartoony characters), innovation is what has kept Nintendo a favorite.
--trb