If the Entropia folks were smart, they would sell not just gametime in Entropia but the ability for any player to buy, create, and control a virtual world of their own that they could open to other players. Entropia may not be able to offer me a virtual world I'd like, but someone else may be able to use Entropia's technology to create a world I would enjoy, a world where I might even buy things.
Everyone would get something out of this arrangement:
Entropia would get fees from world-owners (and possibly a cut of all goods bought and sold);
World-owners would get the opportunity to take advantage of Entropia's population and technology to try to make profitable, fun worlds of their own;
Players would get many new worlds to try.
What's important here is that all these worlds are linked; that you could travel to one from the other like you travel from one country to another in realspace. (Convert your currency at the border. Certain items may not be allowed in a given world, and must be checked upon arrival. Reclaim them on your way out.)
By making all the smaller worlds parts of one big game, Entropia (or whomever) could exploit network effects and firmly tip the market in their favor.
The first company that begins *selling* virtual worlds to the masses is going to be the company that dominates the industry. Infrastructure is always a more appealing buy than content.
I kept meaning to send an e-mail about the Microsoft judgment, but this article was the reminder I needed. I wrote and sent off my e-mail just a few seconds ago. I thought it'd be interesting to see how many people did the same. If you did end your procrastination and send off that e-mail, why not reply to this post ("me too" is fine) so that we can see how many people this really affected?
I admit that the wearable idea is pretty intriguing, but wouldn't this be even easier to steal than a laptop?
Imagine walking down the street, surfing the web, when suddenly you feel someone jostle your side. Your expensive new Xybernaut is yoinked off you and the thief takes off at Mach 1 while you're still trying to click the Back button.
Until the price of wearable PCs drops down to the price of a cell phone (or world peace spontaneously occurs), a wearable PC will be like a sign that says "I'm a big, rich, nerd. Please rob me."
Qwest and Microsoft *should* be partners -- Qwest is the Microsoft of the telecom industry. They telemarket numbers their customers have specifically asked to be unlisted; they bully, harass, and trick customers into accepting options they never wanted. A match made in heaven.
You can visit tsewQ.com for more info, or write their CEO at joe@qwest.com. It won't really help, but it might make you feel better to vent if you've been screwed by Qwest as, ahem, some of us have.
Re:Things you never want to hear in a porn movie:
on
Star Ballz Trumps Lucas
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not. Hmm?"
In all seriousness, would YOU recommend sending our Air Force One to China for refitting? Of course not. It would be an obvious security breach. Hence the "Duh."
It's one thing to buy toys and trinkets from a hostile country, another to give your most important military air vehicle over to them to refit. That's just stupid.
And as far as those toys and trinkets go, we shouldn't even be buying them from China. McDonald's Happy Meal toys -- what could be more American than a Happy Meal? -- are made mostly in terribly unsafe factories by young Chinese women and girls who are fired if they try to unionize.
When another Chinese toy factory burned down a couple years ago (it happens a lot) several workers died choking on poisonous smoke because there was only door out of the factory. "Witnesses interviewed by Guangdong television said the workers were unable to escape because the windows were sealed by metal screens to prevent theft." Many women have died from handling toxic chemicals without being provided with the proper education or necessary protection. Many more are breathing in chemicals every day which are known carcinogens.
In America, we wouldn't let anyone work in these conditions, yet we let corporations manufacture and import goods that were produced under such conditions.
So, yeah. I feel no pity for the Chinese government. They deserve what they get and more. But I wish the same retribution on Corporate America for sacrificing people's lives and safety for cheaper Barbies.
Maybe the problem is the idea of the "content industry" in the first place.
Those words show just how much meaning art has to these executives -- zero. "Content" is a way of referring to art as commodity, and it devalues both the artist and audience into sellers and buyers in a market.
Maybe we don't NEED an industry to feed us "content" anymore. Maybe we can make it up and share it amongst ourselves. Maybe we'll pay those of us who we really like. Maybe we won't be bamboozled by the bright lights of big money spectacles anymore. Without their ludicrously large promotion budgets, the Nsyncs and the Pearl Harbors of the world will fade away, replaced by new choices that mean something.
I think it's this future that we're seeing emerge, and I find a lot of hope in it. I think it terrifies the "content industry". And it makes me glad. Because to be successful, their content will have to become art again.
Apple seems consistently SO close to getting things perfect. Job's "digital lifestyle hub" idea makes sense, but the iMac is missing a few things that would've made it great for that purpose.
Things the iMac should've had but didn't:
1) Touchscreen: If this is really meant to be a digital hub, let's make it usable without a keyboard. You ought to be able to flip through pictures, play music, videos, and surf the web without connecting a keyboard. (In my opinion, the proper place for one of these things is on the kitchen countertop, bedroom nightstand, or livingroom endtable. Not a desktop.)
2) Wireless Everything: All right, not wireless digital video uploading, but wireless keyboard, wireless mouse that doubles as remote when you watch DVDs or show pictures to family, wireless connectors for other devices yet to be named that you'll want to place around your house but use with your digital hub.
3) Translucent "Bondi" Blue case: Hey, I liked the blue. As it is, it currently looks like something out of the harsh, blinding white future of THX-1138, and is out of place in most decors. Plus, they've essentially thrown away any sense of brand continuity or identity they spent 4 years building with the iMac.
Ideally, the base would be skinnable in the same way that cellphones are. There's no reason you should buy a computer in one color instead of a skin for every time you want to change colors. Seems like it would've been easy to do with the current design.
I'm not criticizing Apple, though. Thank god for them. They breathe sci-fi into the world. And while I wasn't sure what to make of the new iMac at first glance, I'm liking it more and more.
If they'd only port OS X to the PC! That's the real killer app they're sitting on.
...if I were the music industry I would point out that vastly more music sits on hard drives than CDs, and hard drives are exempt from royalties under the Digital Audio Recording Act.
However, it seems to me they could just broaden the scope of royalties to INCLUDE harddrives, and make it definitively legal to download and exchange music over the 'net.
It would be worth it for me to pay an extra $50 for my new HD if I knew I never had to hear about or deal with the RIAA again.
Your answer is both good and simple. It's a shame Best Buy and others couldn't come up with it too.
This begs the question: Is there any legitimate excuse for retailers who have several months of planning to not address the same basic security issues you did in 5 minutes?
This lack of security is negligence, and I think corporations should be forced to pay damages when they issue products which ignore security so blatantly.
Whether it's Microsoft or Best Buy, consumers should have a right to believe that their product is secure in the same way that they have a right to believe their product is safe.
Personally, I think someone should file a class action suit against these companies. Corporations should be forced to pay punitive damages when they issue products that violate reasonable expectations of security.
From the nReach products index page: "The company is well positioned with this new product to introduce a cost effective solution for retailers and advertisers to reach the teen and 'tween' market through the most successful handheld device released in the United States."
Grrrrrreat. Can't wait until I have to sit through 5 minutes of ads aimed at 10-year-olds just so I can play MarioKart Advance with a friend.
Using a local cache would require Slashdot to serve vastly more data than it does now.
Serving lots of data to a large audience costs a lot of money. Linking to a site doesn't. It's that simple. Slashdot wants to save a buck.
However, one hit from Slashdot can eliminate a small site's readers for the rest of the month, if they have monthly traffic limits. Or worse. It is irresponsible to link to a small site this way.
What I don't understand is why Slashdot just doesn't start a policy of linking the actual site AND its Google cache. Let the readers choose. If Google complains, work something out with them. Some sites would kill for this kind of traffic. Use it as an asset. And stop killing the little guys.
Any guess on how long traditional TV will last once HDTV hits critical mass? I'm thinking at least another 20 years.
That'll be kinda hard once the FCC reclaims and sells off the NTSC spectrum. Unless you like static.
The future of digital radio in the US is anyone's guess right now. There's satellite, IBOC, spread spectrum proposals, and more. Keeping those in mind, and looking at current FCC policy, however, I wouldn't be so sure your current FM radio is still going to be good 10 years from now.
I hate it when I catch an interesting Slashdot thread 484 comments too late.
But here's what bugs me about satellite radio:
1. Unlike AM/FM broadcasters, satellite broadcasters use a digital signal, which puts them under the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, and other statutes dealing with digital transmission of sound.
One effect of this is that XM and Sirius have to pay *double* the royalties of a traditional AM/FM station -- they have to license both the musical work copyright AND the digital transmission performance right, same as regular ol' webcasters do. (And you wondered why they play commercials AND ask for money.)
2. If satellite radio reaches a critical market share, it will force AM/FM broadcasters into even *blander* programming. Think of network TV before and after cable, "Roots" vs. "Temptation Island". Who cares? You might; it'll essentially force you to pay to hear decent radio.
3. The FCC and esp. little Michael K. Powell would love to sell off the dinosaur AM/FM spectrum. If satellite radio proves itself as an alternative model in the next few years, it will finally give them the excuse to do so. When that day comes, you can forget about getting out your soldering iron and building an FM transmitter and getting on the air. Important critical voices and great low power stations will be lost forever. Nothing can replace that.
The Segway seems like something out of a Heinlein novel; Kamen seems like a Heinlein character. And it seems like a nifty idea to me.
I have to park nearly a mile away from my first class, and I bet this'd be a heck of a fun way to get there.
On the other hand, it seems like he already did this better with the iBot. Check out those videos. Why stand when you can sit? Why lug your Segway up stairs when you could ride your iBot?
(Actually, I'm more in favor of PRT than anything else. It solves the problem of commuting AND getting around the city, plus it's Jetson-y cool to boot.)
It's worth pointing out that switching to spread spectrum would mean changing from an analog broadcast standard to a digital one, and would thus bring broadcasters under the scope of the DMCA.
Also, I think any switch that eliminates the current spectrum model would be disastrous for other reasons, too. (Fragmenting the current unified, ubiquitous radio audience into groups with and without digital receivers, for one thing.)
I'm not a lawyer or a (legal) broadcaster. Just so you know. But I think digital radio is a Bad Idea(tm).
I thought the point that Americans are meant to be noticing is that it is low-tech which is a real danger, not high-tech. Osama bin Laden took out the WTC with fanatics, box-cutters and commercial airliners, not cruise missiles or stealth operations, or even a bomb.
Um.
Those jets? The ones that crashed into the buildings? Hi-tech, wouldn't you say?
Geez.
The real danger occurs when something that is taken for granted, something that is very low-tech and forms a basic part of society, is used for ill means.
Look again: it's not the boxcutters that did the damage; it was the jets. Or more specifically, a lack of adequate security and understanding about the magnitude of damage said jets were capable of doing in the wrong hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone would get something out of this arrangement:
What's important here is that all these worlds are linked; that you could travel to one from the other like you travel from one country to another in realspace. (Convert your currency at the border. Certain items may not be allowed in a given world, and must be checked upon arrival. Reclaim them on your way out.)By making all the smaller worlds parts of one big game, Entropia (or whomever) could exploit network effects and firmly tip the market in their favor. The first company that begins *selling* virtual worlds to the masses is going to be the company that dominates the industry. Infrastructure is always a more appealing buy than content.
I was going to do exactly what this fellow did, but he beat me to it. Clever. Let's hope this URL gets around: http://www.trustworthycomputing.com
You might like to. It's quite fascinating, and is written in a Lewis-and-Clark explorer-in-the-New-World fashion. It reads like a good sci-fi story.
If I had modpoints, you'd get them today. Good observation.
I kept meaning to send an e-mail about the Microsoft judgment, but this article was the reminder I needed. I wrote and sent off my e-mail just a few seconds ago. I thought it'd be interesting to see how many people did the same. If you did end your procrastination and send off that e-mail, why not reply to this post ("me too" is fine) so that we can see how many people this really affected?
I admit that the wearable idea is pretty intriguing, but wouldn't this be even easier to steal than a laptop?
Imagine walking down the street, surfing the web, when suddenly you feel someone jostle your side. Your expensive new Xybernaut is yoinked off you and the thief takes off at Mach 1 while you're still trying to click the Back button.
Until the price of wearable PCs drops down to the price of a cell phone (or world peace spontaneously occurs), a wearable PC will be like a sign that says "I'm a big, rich, nerd. Please rob me."
Qwest and Microsoft *should* be partners -- Qwest is the Microsoft of the telecom industry. They telemarket numbers their customers have specifically asked to be unlisted; they bully, harass, and trick customers into accepting options they never wanted. A match made in heaven.
You can visit tsewQ.com for more info, or write their CEO at joe@qwest.com. It won't really help, but it might make you feel better to vent if you've been screwed by Qwest as, ahem, some of us have.
"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not. Hmm?"
I sense a grave disturbance in the force.
In all seriousness, would YOU recommend sending our Air Force One to China for refitting? Of course not. It would be an obvious security breach. Hence the "Duh."
It's one thing to buy toys and trinkets from a hostile country, another to give your most important military air vehicle over to them to refit. That's just stupid.
And as far as those toys and trinkets go, we shouldn't even be buying them from China. McDonald's Happy Meal toys -- what could be more American than a Happy Meal? -- are made mostly in terribly unsafe factories by young Chinese women and girls who are fired if they try to unionize.
When another Chinese toy factory burned down a couple years ago (it happens a lot) several workers died choking on poisonous smoke because there was only door out of the factory. "Witnesses interviewed by Guangdong television said the workers were unable to escape because the windows were sealed by metal screens to prevent theft." Many women have died from handling toxic chemicals without being provided with the proper education or necessary protection. Many more are breathing in chemicals every day which are known carcinogens.
In America, we wouldn't let anyone work in these conditions, yet we let corporations manufacture and import goods that were produced under such conditions.
So, yeah. I feel no pity for the Chinese government. They deserve what they get and more. But I wish the same retribution on Corporate America for sacrificing people's lives and safety for cheaper Barbies.
What do you expect when you get your plane refitted in an "enemy" nation? A hug?
Maybe the problem is the idea of the "content industry" in the first place.
Those words show just how much meaning art has to these executives -- zero. "Content" is a way of referring to art as commodity, and it devalues both the artist and audience into sellers and buyers in a market.
Maybe we don't NEED an industry to feed us "content" anymore. Maybe we can make it up and share it amongst ourselves. Maybe we'll pay those of us who we really like. Maybe we won't be bamboozled by the bright lights of big money spectacles anymore. Without their ludicrously large promotion budgets, the Nsyncs and the Pearl Harbors of the world will fade away, replaced by new choices that mean something.
I think it's this future that we're seeing emerge, and I find a lot of hope in it. I think it terrifies the "content industry". And it makes me glad. Because to be successful, their content will have to become art again.
Well, that takes care of THAT! Piracy is finally solved. Move along now! Nothing to see here!
It even comes with a TV out, just like the old C-64. You should post this as a separate thread.
From Symantec: "The virus was named 'dotNET' by its creator but we decided to add detection of it as W32.Donut instead."
Heaven forbid we actually tarnish the sterling security record of Microsoft products. Sheesh.
Things the iMac should've had but didn't:
I'm not criticizing Apple, though. Thank god for them. They breathe sci-fi into the world. And while I wasn't sure what to make of the new iMac at first glance, I'm liking it more and more.If they'd only port OS X to the PC! That's the real killer app they're sitting on.
...if I were the music industry I would point out that vastly more music sits on hard drives than CDs, and hard drives are exempt from royalties under the Digital Audio Recording Act.
However, it seems to me they could just broaden the scope of royalties to INCLUDE harddrives, and make it definitively legal to download and exchange music over the 'net.
It would be worth it for me to pay an extra $50 for my new HD if I knew I never had to hear about or deal with the RIAA again.
Your answer is both good and simple. It's a shame Best Buy and others couldn't come up with it too.
This begs the question: Is there any legitimate excuse for retailers who have several months of planning to not address the same basic security issues you did in 5 minutes?
This lack of security is negligence, and I think corporations should be forced to pay damages when they issue products which ignore security so blatantly.
Whether it's Microsoft or Best Buy, consumers should have a right to believe that their product is secure in the same way that they have a right to believe their product is safe.
Personally, I think someone should file a class action suit against these companies. Corporations should be forced to pay punitive damages when they issue products that violate reasonable expectations of security.
Grrrrrreat. Can't wait until I have to sit through 5 minutes of ads aimed at 10-year-olds just so I can play MarioKart Advance with a friend.
Using a local cache would require Slashdot to serve vastly more data than it does now.
Serving lots of data to a large audience costs a lot of money. Linking to a site doesn't. It's that simple. Slashdot wants to save a buck.
However, one hit from Slashdot can eliminate a small site's readers for the rest of the month, if they have monthly traffic limits. Or worse. It is irresponsible to link to a small site this way.
What I don't understand is why Slashdot just doesn't start a policy of linking the actual site AND its Google cache. Let the readers choose. If Google complains, work something out with them. Some sites would kill for this kind of traffic. Use it as an asset. And stop killing the little guys.
That'll be kinda hard once the FCC reclaims and sells off the NTSC spectrum. Unless you like static.
The future of digital radio in the US is anyone's guess right now. There's satellite, IBOC, spread spectrum proposals, and more. Keeping those in mind, and looking at current FCC policy, however, I wouldn't be so sure your current FM radio is still going to be good 10 years from now.
I hate it when I catch an interesting Slashdot thread 484 comments too late.
But here's what bugs me about satellite radio:
1. Unlike AM/FM broadcasters, satellite broadcasters use a digital signal, which puts them under the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, and other statutes dealing with digital transmission of sound.
One effect of this is that XM and Sirius have to pay *double* the royalties of a traditional AM/FM station -- they have to license both the musical work copyright AND the digital transmission performance right, same as regular ol' webcasters do. (And you wondered why they play commercials AND ask for money.)
2. If satellite radio reaches a critical market share, it will force AM/FM broadcasters into even *blander* programming. Think of network TV before and after cable, "Roots" vs. "Temptation Island". Who cares? You might; it'll essentially force you to pay to hear decent radio.
3. The FCC and esp. little Michael K. Powell would love to sell off the dinosaur AM/FM spectrum. If satellite radio proves itself as an alternative model in the next few years, it will finally give them the excuse to do so. When that day comes, you can forget about getting out your soldering iron and building an FM transmitter and getting on the air. Important critical voices and great low power stations will be lost forever. Nothing can replace that.
The Segway seems like something out of a Heinlein novel; Kamen seems like a Heinlein character. And it seems like a nifty idea to me.
I have to park nearly a mile away from my first class, and I bet this'd be a heck of a fun way to get there.
On the other hand, it seems like he already did this better with the iBot. Check out those videos. Why stand when you can sit? Why lug your Segway up stairs when you could ride your iBot?
(Actually, I'm more in favor of PRT than anything else. It solves the problem of commuting AND getting around the city, plus it's Jetson-y cool to boot.)
For starters, this would mean U.S. commercial radio stations would have to pay double royalties to broadcast the same music they do now. (Check out the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.)
Also, I think any switch that eliminates the current spectrum model would be disastrous for other reasons, too. (Fragmenting the current unified, ubiquitous radio audience into groups with and without digital receivers, for one thing.)
I'm not a lawyer or a (legal) broadcaster. Just so you know. But I think digital radio is a Bad Idea(tm).
Um.
Those jets? The ones that crashed into the buildings? Hi-tech, wouldn't you say?
Geez.
The real danger occurs when something that is taken for granted, something that is very low-tech and forms a basic part of society, is used for ill means.
Look again: it's not the boxcutters that did the damage; it was the jets. Or more specifically, a lack of adequate security and understanding about the magnitude of damage said jets were capable of doing in the wrong hands.
Exactly the same point applies to nanotech.