I was watching that video someone took in the stands of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer doing that Matrix spoof, and the people gigglechuckling like idiots as that unimaginative crap unfolded. It's hard not to take as a guilty pleasure that we can hold our software's creator to a higher standard of comedy, in addition to software quality, pricing options, etc.
Japan is currently driving robot innovation, according to the article, impelled by a looming labor shortage.
Ugh. I get as excited about robots and Linux as much as anybody, but the semi-marxist in me gets a little freaked out by things like this.
How long before innovation that can take the role of a worker in a labor-shortage environment ends up being used to replace real people in a labor-glutted environment?
It would set a pretty bad precedent if IBM were to settle what has been a PR disaster for Linux for such small terms. Even worse is the possibility that this is all being spurned on by Microsoft, in which case they're not deterred at all. If Microsoft IS behind this, then an example needs to be made to all companies that doing MS's dirty work for them could get real expensive once the fit hits the shan.
Indeed. It's just become so predictable by this point there's no sense paying attention to it anymore. It's so out of my own hands I'm just giving up, taking some personal hybernation time on this issue, and coming back when IBM's lawyers are finished with this.
In short: Ask not for whom the Darl trolls. He trolls for thee, not me.
Re:It's not really all THAT odd...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 1
Trust me, I know how this works.
Heh. As someone who's worked as a newspaper editor, you can trust me too.
I've been through this enough to know the drill.
Well, anyone who's ever worked as an editor knows what I'm talking about. Articles like these, particularly industry-friendly articles, start from good PR work done by the company in question. Never mind the whole concept of spacefilling fluff to meet quotas that look good to potential advertisers...
Re:It's not really all THAT odd...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, that's not how you get articles in the press.
Heh. Go work for a newspaper and then come back again in six months.
Re:It's not really all THAT odd...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
On that level, I sort of agree, but at the same time, that's like doing an article about increased consumption of fast food in society and leaving out McDonald's.
What? What are those request hours all about then?
This analogy doesn't hold up under any level of scrutiny.
Nah, man. You're just splitting hairs.
It's not really all THAT odd...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's not really all that odd. The mainstream press isn't exactly tech savvy. Heck, mainstream press isn't exactly savvy in ANY field, and often relies upon press releases from outside bodies to figure out if something is worth pursuing as a story.
The Unreal guys probably got proactive about getting this story out there.
Although this may (or may not) be the case, I still don't understand how this justifies the illegal downloading of MP3s.
I'm not saying anything justifies anything. What I'm saying is that the industry should have seen the internet as the new radio and adjusted accordingly. Either that, or it should have moved the product off such an easily duplicatable format.
If I declare that the business model of commercial software development is out-dated does that grant me the right to pirate said software and violate the publishers' copyrights?
You missed my point. The piracy is going to continue to happen because at the moment it's most pleasurable to music listeners to get the music that way. The only thing preventing that is the threat of a litigation. At the moment internet music sharing is illegal by definition, not by some higher moral code. Trying to argue otherwise is to engage in Prohibitionist-type thinking... and we all know how that went.
However, a few people came along, changed the model up a bit, and started offering affordable, a la carte music via services such as iTunes and Rhapsody.
Because they're not thinking right. Do you pay to listen to the radio? No, you buy the radio, and there you go, you get your music. These pay-for-each-track ideas are nice in theory, but the public has already had a taste of better in the original Napster, and in the current Kazaa.
The problem is that most people, I tend to think, just use this "out-dated" argument as another excuse to illegally download MP3s.
Your head's in the sand, man. The business model that was ideal for their consumers was shown to the industry, and was open to exploitation by the industry for further profit. The industry rejected it because it didn't understand how to use it.
This is just a cop-out to them. I commend you, however, for actually taking a proactive stance and offering up an alternative.
I appreciate the accolades, but it's the consumers' job to consume, nothing more. Creating a palpable model for it is the entrepreneur's job.
If the model is so broken, then why don't all of these people (who appear to be broke since they can't allegedly afford 99 cent downloads)...
Wrong assumption. They've chosen the easiest way to get music instead of bending over backwards to accomodate an industry that marks up production costs on their products by %1500 for the sake of overpaying executives who exist by milking existing profit-taking methods....fill the void and DEVELOP exactly what you've described and fix the situation, while making a pretty penny at the same time?
Because I think it's a safe bet that any such program that got developed would get sued into the ground by the RIAA. It's seemingly enough that nobody would be willing to take the venture for fear of repercussion.
If people stopped bitching and moaning and actually did something about it, everyone would win.
Once more, it is the consumers' job to consume. Right now, they can do that easily enough without resorting to other methods, even industry-friendly ones like iTunes or what have you. The industry had a chance to ride the wave, not change the way the consumers were consuming, and still get something out of it. They missed the boat. And now they have to sue 12-year-old girls because they don't have the imagination to think beyond bully tactics.
The thing is.. I don't see this happening. Until I do, I will continue to believe that this argument is hogwash..
It's just an opinion. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that. But I think my proposal is unfortunately one of those things that can only exist in hindsight, since the industry's committed to the current tactics and can't back down from them without the appearance of relinquishing ALL credibility.
The industry fucked up by not taking Napster and using it as a conduit for regular sales.
I know too many people who love good music to risk buying crap at the store that they haven't gotten a proper chance to preview, but let's leave behind the idea that many people treated the MP3s they downloaded as the equivalent of ads when it came to determining what CDs they wanted to buy.
Think on this instead. You're already on Napster, downloading music. You've just found out that you can also buy concert tickets there. Or, there's a neat service that, for 5 bucks, will dump a huge selection of thematically-related songs onto your computer in a conveniently located spot for burning to a CD. Or, there's a spot for getting T-shirts, posters, sweaters, stickers of your favourite band. Or, there's a spot for buying 50c's autobiography or that Rolling Stones concert on DVD. Or, there's a spot that lets you buy the CDs themselves, since sometimes people want the jackets and lyrics and higher-quality music.
Never mind the ad revenue that could be generated by having such a flourishing community that you're at the center of and controlling.
Feel free to add to this list. On top of it all, you put yourself in a situation where you're working with technology, not against it, and you've got GOODWILL going with your customers.
But that's okay! Because there'll be a really hot girl involved and Tom Cruise will show up with all sorts of slow-mo walk-bys, acrobatic insanities, and lots of doves being scared up into the air from off camera by John Woo...
Obviously you have to listen to criticism about hardware issues and general performance.
As for the creative element, though, it's the same as workshopping any artwork. You really just want to listen to the BEST criticism, and that's the kind where the audience senses where the producer intended to go with the game, and can offer intelligent advice on how close the product is to getting there. Stuff like "Well, I don't think this is a good RTS because it's not more like Total Annihilation" is bad criticism. Even stuff like "It's not a good RTS because you have to spend too much time micromanaging resources" isn't the greatest criticism because it doesn't take into account whether or not the producer wants to have made an RTS that focuses on micromanaging resources, as well as the fact that many gamers might like such an RTS. What THAT producer needs to hear is "It's not a good RTS because the resource management isn't fun -- it's repetitive, I don't have ways of automating my units, etc.".
Good advice comes from a producer being clear about their intent for the game, and finding the sort of people best able to offer advice on how to fulfill that intent. It's when the producer ignores this advice that they commit hubris.
I couldn't tell from the article exactly how they were counting 20 emails (cc's or bcc's count? groups count?). But the fact that they monitor by email sending rate seems interesting. I think adding just one more step to that process could make it really useful.
1) Monitor all sources of emails in which large numbers are being sent over a short time period.
2) Allow a central repository for people to report which emails are considered spam. Once that amount reaches a certain threshold...
In Soviet Russia, all your kernel update notices are belong to slashdot posters who complain about whether or not kernel update notices are front page worthy! Oh yeah, and HOT GRITS!
Now, before you mod me down, ask yourself if anything more insightful than the above is going to get posted on this thread.
To get the full text of the article you must apparently have a subscription of pay a $30 fee.
$30?!? For that much I'd better get the hot swedish mathematician herself explaining it to me over my shoulder with nice perfume and wearing one of those push-up bras which are visible because she hasn't done up all the buttons on her shirt...
Slashdot Mirror
Our guy is one witty bastard.
I was watching that video someone took in the stands of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer doing that Matrix spoof, and the people gigglechuckling like idiots as that unimaginative crap unfolded. It's hard not to take as a guilty pleasure that we can hold our software's creator to a higher standard of comedy, in addition to software quality, pricing options, etc.
Empire State Building
World Trade Center
Heerrrr ya goo!
Personally, I'll welcome the day when robots can do all our work for us, and I can go and relax on the beach all day long.
But how are you going to be able to purchase the necessary commodities of life? Food/shelter/clothing and all that?
It's not like the people who have these robots are going to donate the fruits of their labour for free.
Japan is currently driving robot innovation, according to the article, impelled by a looming labor shortage.
Ugh. I get as excited about robots and Linux as much as anybody, but the semi-marxist in me gets a little freaked out by things like this.
How long before innovation that can take the role of a worker in a labor-shortage environment ends up being used to replace real people in a labor-glutted environment?
It's only because...
In Aahnold's Calleefoneeah, tha cinema should record yoo!
It would set a pretty bad precedent if IBM were to settle what has been a PR disaster for Linux for such small terms. Even worse is the possibility that this is all being spurned on by Microsoft, in which case they're not deterred at all. If Microsoft IS behind this, then an example needs to be made to all companies that doing MS's dirty work for them could get real expensive once the fit hits the shan.
Nothing we haven't seen before.
Indeed. It's just become so predictable by this point there's no sense paying attention to it anymore. It's so out of my own hands I'm just giving up, taking some personal hybernation time on this issue, and coming back when IBM's lawyers are finished with this.
In short: Ask not for whom the Darl trolls. He trolls for thee, not me.
Trust me, I know how this works.
Heh. As someone who's worked as a newspaper editor, you can trust me too.
I've been through this enough to know the drill.
Well, anyone who's ever worked as an editor knows what I'm talking about. Articles like these, particularly industry-friendly articles, start from good PR work done by the company in question. Never mind the whole concept of spacefilling fluff to meet quotas that look good to potential advertisers...
No, that's not how you get articles in the press.
Heh. Go work for a newspaper and then come back again in six months.
On that level, I sort of agree, but at the same time, that's like doing an article about increased consumption of fast food in society and leaving out McDonald's.
Do you get to choose what's on the radio? No.
What? What are those request hours all about then?
This analogy doesn't hold up under any level of scrutiny.
Nah, man. You're just splitting hairs.
It's not really all that odd. The mainstream press isn't exactly tech savvy. Heck, mainstream press isn't exactly savvy in ANY field, and often relies upon press releases from outside bodies to figure out if something is worth pursuing as a story.
The Unreal guys probably got proactive about getting this story out there.
Although this may (or may not) be the case, I still don't understand how this justifies the illegal downloading of MP3s.
...fill the void and DEVELOP exactly what you've described and fix the situation, while making a pretty penny at the same time?
I'm not saying anything justifies anything. What I'm saying is that the industry should have seen the internet as the new radio and adjusted accordingly. Either that, or it should have moved the product off such an easily duplicatable format.
If I declare that the business model of commercial software development is out-dated does that grant me the right to pirate said software and violate the publishers' copyrights?
You missed my point. The piracy is going to continue to happen because at the moment it's most pleasurable to music listeners to get the music that way. The only thing preventing that is the threat of a litigation. At the moment internet music sharing is illegal by definition, not by some higher moral code. Trying to argue otherwise is to engage in Prohibitionist-type thinking... and we all know how that went.
However, a few people came along, changed the model up a bit, and started offering affordable, a la carte music via services such as iTunes and Rhapsody.
Because they're not thinking right. Do you pay to listen to the radio? No, you buy the radio, and there you go, you get your music. These pay-for-each-track ideas are nice in theory, but the public has already had a taste of better in the original Napster, and in the current Kazaa.
The problem is that most people, I tend to think, just use this "out-dated" argument as another excuse to illegally download MP3s.
Your head's in the sand, man. The business model that was ideal for their consumers was shown to the industry, and was open to exploitation by the industry for further profit. The industry rejected it because it didn't understand how to use it.
This is just a cop-out to them. I commend you, however, for actually taking a proactive stance and offering up an alternative.
I appreciate the accolades, but it's the consumers' job to consume, nothing more. Creating a palpable model for it is the entrepreneur's job.
If the model is so broken, then why don't all of these people (who appear to be broke since they can't allegedly afford 99 cent downloads)...
Wrong assumption. They've chosen the easiest way to get music instead of bending over backwards to accomodate an industry that marks up production costs on their products by %1500 for the sake of overpaying executives who exist by milking existing profit-taking methods.
Because I think it's a safe bet that any such program that got developed would get sued into the ground by the RIAA. It's seemingly enough that nobody would be willing to take the venture for fear of repercussion.
If people stopped bitching and moaning and actually did something about it, everyone would win.
Once more, it is the consumers' job to consume. Right now, they can do that easily enough without resorting to other methods, even industry-friendly ones like iTunes or what have you. The industry had a chance to ride the wave, not change the way the consumers were consuming, and still get something out of it. They missed the boat. And now they have to sue 12-year-old girls because they don't have the imagination to think beyond bully tactics.
The thing is.. I don't see this happening. Until I do, I will continue to believe that this argument is hogwash..
It's just an opinion. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that. But I think my proposal is unfortunately one of those things that can only exist in hindsight, since the industry's committed to the current tactics and can't back down from them without the appearance of relinquishing ALL credibility.
The industry fucked up by not taking Napster and using it as a conduit for regular sales.
I know too many people who love good music to risk buying crap at the store that they haven't gotten a proper chance to preview, but let's leave behind the idea that many people treated the MP3s they downloaded as the equivalent of ads when it came to determining what CDs they wanted to buy.
Think on this instead. You're already on Napster, downloading music. You've just found out that you can also buy concert tickets there. Or, there's a neat service that, for 5 bucks, will dump a huge selection of thematically-related songs onto your computer in a conveniently located spot for burning to a CD. Or, there's a spot for getting T-shirts, posters, sweaters, stickers of your favourite band. Or, there's a spot for buying 50c's autobiography or that Rolling Stones concert on DVD. Or, there's a spot that lets you buy the CDs themselves, since sometimes people want the jackets and lyrics and higher-quality music.
Never mind the ad revenue that could be generated by having such a flourishing community that you're at the center of and controlling.
Feel free to add to this list. On top of it all, you put yourself in a situation where you're working with technology, not against it, and you've got GOODWILL going with your customers.
Imagine that.
But that's okay! Because there'll be a really hot girl involved and Tom Cruise will show up with all sorts of slow-mo walk-bys, acrobatic insanities, and lots of doves being scared up into the air from off camera by John Woo...
Right...?
Obviously you have to listen to criticism about hardware issues and general performance.
As for the creative element, though, it's the same as workshopping any artwork. You really just want to listen to the BEST criticism, and that's the kind where the audience senses where the producer intended to go with the game, and can offer intelligent advice on how close the product is to getting there. Stuff like "Well, I don't think this is a good RTS because it's not more like Total Annihilation" is bad criticism. Even stuff like "It's not a good RTS because you have to spend too much time micromanaging resources" isn't the greatest criticism because it doesn't take into account whether or not the producer wants to have made an RTS that focuses on micromanaging resources, as well as the fact that many gamers might like such an RTS. What THAT producer needs to hear is "It's not a good RTS because the resource management isn't fun -- it's repetitive, I don't have ways of automating my units, etc.".
Good advice comes from a producer being clear about their intent for the game, and finding the sort of people best able to offer advice on how to fulfill that intent. It's when the producer ignores this advice that they commit hubris.
How to misunderstand open source?!?
That's an easy one.
Just listen to what Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates or Darl McBride have to say on the matter.
96 Hours Of Open Source Talks In Bangalore! 96 Hours Of Open Source Talks...!
Take a poster of Darl down, kick it around...
95 Hours of Open Source Talks in Bangalore!
I couldn't tell from the article exactly how they were counting 20 emails (cc's or bcc's count? groups count?). But the fact that they monitor by email sending rate seems interesting. I think adding just one more step to that process could make it really useful.
1) Monitor all sources of emails in which large numbers are being sent over a short time period.
2) Allow a central repository for people to report which emails are considered spam. Once that amount reaches a certain threshold...
3) Connect the dots, you get a spammer.
In Soviet Russia, all your kernel update notices are belong to slashdot posters who complain about whether or not kernel update notices are front page worthy! Oh yeah, and HOT GRITS!
Now, before you mod me down, ask yourself if anything more insightful than the above is going to get posted on this thread.
Okay, now mod me down.
...providing civilians with an inside perspective and a virtual role in today's premiere land force, the U.S. Army.
Oh? So the game provides you with thousands of innocent civilians to kill? Or does it offer you leisure time to get some feedback from the locals?
I hope not. I hate it when fun little fantasies get complicated by reality. Hopefully all the bad guys look like Osama or Saddam.
To get the full text of the article you must apparently have a subscription of pay a $30 fee.
$30?!? For that much I'd better get the hot swedish mathematician herself explaining it to me over my shoulder with nice perfume and wearing one of those push-up bras which are visible because she hasn't done up all the buttons on her shirt...
Okay. $50, and that's my final offer.
Fine. $75. But I get her for the whole hour!
InfoWorld is reporting that SpamCop is about to be sold to IronPort Systems for an undisclosed amount of money...
Hey, I don't know about you, but no price is too small for that great selection of penis enlargement offers they must have at their fingertips.
Don't forget the last step, where all the products are BOUGHT over there because nobody over here has a job.