I found "Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus" to not be that helpful. On the other hand, I still use "The Zen of Graphics" (1996, Abrash) (just a subset of games, true, but probably the trickiest one to do well) from time to time even today.
I find that rather amusing, actually. I ran into the exact opposite. I found Abrash's works to go out of date and relevence much faster than LaMothe's more comprehensive, but perhaps less detailed, books.:-)
I don't generally see the point of books that abstract themselves away from the process so that you're looking at little more than sweeping concepts with a few cheap examples behind them.
Eh? I hardly think that Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus was that abstract. Certainly not focused on the 3D engine for Quake (which it predated by a couple years), but it does lay the groundwork in a developer's mind for the entirity of the gaming industry. Sure, I've outgrown the information the book contains, but the ideas it helped me understand back in '94 (Video Scanning, Sprites, Parallel vs. Perspective, an intro to 3D Mathematics, etc.) formed a solid basis for my works today. Most of the info learned translated into the 3D world because he taught the most important thing a programmer can possibly learn about gaming: Stop worrying about how others did it (if I hear one more "How do I code Quake III?" question, I'm going to throttle someone), and figure out your own method.
I suppose that the message really hit me more because of my background as a home schooler. LaMothe's message built on top of the message I grew up with: Education is not about what you know, it's about learning how to learn. The former stops when school is over. The latter lasts a lifetime.
Also things like how to optimize *properly*
I actually cringe when I think about half the stuff that Abrash taught. Sure, it was necessary back then (you didn't have cycles to waste), but I fear that far too many programmers came away with the idea of premature optimization rather than a far more effetive method of optimizing:
Step 1: Use a faster Algorithm. Step 2: Make it work. Step 3: THEN look to optimize only the most critical sections. Step 4: Repeat as necessarily.
Or as the famous "first rule of optimization" goes, "Don't." Quickly followed by the second rule (for experts only), "Don't yet."
discussion of what the human eye will and won't notice
I've learned that this has to be revisited every few years. The human eye is a very tricky thing. As technology progresses, we need to reevaluate what works well with current rendering technology. Certainly, assuming that you MUST maintain a stable, VSynced framerate rendered 100% offscreen is a bit naive (though it did look so smoooooth on those old Pong machines, didn't it?), but there's so much more to fooling the eye. Especially since the topic is far reaching, and covers all types of graphics. Not just games.
In any case, I'm getting off track here. There used to be some really great books on game programming. There are still probably a few of them (I keep hearing good things about the Gems series), but I'm not certain I'm all that impressed by the majority of the market. Especially when compared to the really great books we grew up on.:-)
One is a book for programmers, the other is a book for game _designers_. So the relevance of that comparison is...?
The comparison is that one did something useful, while the other one doesn't. Or to steal from the forward of "The Theory of Fun":
The title of this book almost feels wrong to me. As a game designer, seeing the words "Theory "and "Fun" in such close proximity instinctively makes me a bit uncomfortable. Theories are dry and academic things, found in thick books at the back of the library, whereas fun is light, energetic, playful and... well... fun.
The book smacks of trying to make an artist out of someone by explaining what an easel, brush, and paints are rather than teaching him to paint while encouraging his creative side.
Gaming has always been about what "feels" right. A good game could be a few tweaks away from a really horrible game, but it's impossible to know unless someone with a creative side jumps in and adds their creative side to it. Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus took the right approach back in the day. It taught you to "paint" while encouraging you to apply your creativeness and artistic side to it. This attempt at "patterns" feels cold, detached, and a very poor attempt at convering what a designer really needs to learn. If you really feel that you need a book on design independent from programming, then something like A Theory of Fun is a far better choice. At least the author recognizes that games are warm things that can't be so easily quantified. (Though I question the concept of separating a tradesmaster from his trade. Would a building, no matter how beautiful, be designed by an architect lacking in engineering background?)
1994: The computer scientist and game programmer Andre LaMothe writes the quintessential book on game programming, "Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus". The book is dense with useful information, humor, and actual theory on game programming. Millions of Game Players are transformed into real-world Game Programmers overnight.
2004: Staffan Bjork & Jussi Holopainen attempt to bring all the wonder and excitement of development patterns from the business world into the Game Programming world by releasing an utterly boring book full of confusing terminology. (2.5 stars on Amazon.) Programmers everywhere are unimpressed, and budding game makers are left confused. The bright side is that the book explains what an Avatar and High Score List are.
They haven't changed their mind about anything. The only reason why Nintendo defended their rights so vigorously is because they realized that a market existed for the old games. That's why about half of the Gameboy Advance games are actually re-releases of old Nintendo games. The point of keeping the emulation scene under control was so that Nintendo could charge players for old stuff all over again.
I'm sure there's a lively debate in here somewhere about how people used to own many of the games they emulate, and whether or not the laws should actually support what Nintendo is doing. What it comes down to, though, is that Nintendo understands the value in the old stuff and still making money off it.
See this link for a list of the games Nintendo rereleased for the Advance.
FYI, on the Intellivision Lives! disk. Apparently, all the games on the Lives! CDROM are actual ROMs from the system. So you should be able to copy them to a MythTV system, -OR- track down an original Intellivision system (just got mine; man is Blackjack addictive!) and purchase a used Intellicart to play the games on the original system.
Part of the reason why they do this is that the company was founded by the Blue Sky Rangers, the original Intellivision development team. So they know the Intellivision inside and out. With all the psuedo-companies parading around as the original thing these days, one has to give the Blue Sky Rangers kudos for actually being the real thing.
If I were to hazard a guess, the problem has to do with the fact that there are two Ataris. "Atari" was the home system producer while "Atari Games" was the arcade game producer. (Infogrames bought the home system company and now operates under the name "Atari".) Since there are two companies, there may have been some confusion over who owned what. If Atari Games was the one who licensed with StarROMs (which would make sense) they might have run afoul of Infotari who was producing the Flashback 2.0 Plug and Play system.
Games like Pacman (Namco), Joust (Williams), and Space Invaders (Taito) were never owned by Atari, even though Atari did license the rights for home editions. StarROMs never managed to cultivate a relationship with any company other than Atari.
Can anyone shed any more light on the current situation?
Considering that I've never heard about them until today, I'd say that StarROMs had some serious marketing issues. Now that I hear about them and actually want to try their service, they're out of business? Sometimes the world just isn't fair.
In any case, I did a few background checks on StarROMs and I've come to the following conclusions. Let me know if the rest of you agree or disagree:
1. They didn't market enough. I'd heard about such a service in passing, but never found any concrete information. Had they made themselves more visible, perhaps they would have done better.
2. Game selection. With the release of the Flashback 2 and other Atari wares, it's become pretty clear which games Atari feels it has the rights to, and which ones it doesn't. Thus, just like Atari did back in the 1980's, they're recycling the same tired games over and over and over again. (No, I don't want to play Pong Yet Again(TM).) This article discusses how upset that StarROMs was that they didn't gain more industry support.
3. Price. Originally the files were $5 a piece. It looks like many went as low as $2. Given that Atari was probably chewing up a lot of that fee as licensing, I can't see how they made a profit.
...then attach a cat's feet to the buttered side, thus creating a gravitational paradox. (Cat must land on its feet, but the butter must land down.) The result is an antigravity cup that is incapable of falling. Just imagine, a coffee cup that hangs in midair! Just like the Jetsons!
Don't tell me that you're still sore at Kirk for the whole Kobayashi Maru thing, are you? I mean, he did cheat fair and sqaure.:-P
I think the reason why the judges liked this entry was because it was a practical engineering solution similar to what you'd see in the real world. While every engineer wishes that a magic material would come along to solve all their problems (and on rare occasions they do get that wish), most of the time an engineer is forced to make the type of tradeoff seen in the coffee cup. I seriously doubt this solution will be accepted more than once, though, so I expect that you're doubly screwed. Sorry.
How hard would it be to convince some average uses that the worm/virus/trojan that they're downloading is actually an amazing tool to "tweak" some aspect of their computer's performance (internet/speed/ram/etc...)?
The difference between the security hole approach and the social engineering approach, is that the latter starts and ends with stupid users. The worm cannot force its way onto the computers of more savy users like the RPC worms in Windows did. Instead, it will set off a huge number of warning flags with more experienced users, and perhaps prompt them to take action to clean other user's computers or encourage them not to run anything that asks for their password.
The end result is that such viruses could not spread as fast or as far as their Windows counterparts.
He's probably doing what's he's always been doing: Laughing all the way to the bank.
Samsung's hiring of the same designer is nothing more than marketing hype. What Samsung hopes the public fails to realize, is that Steve Jobs is the guy who made the iPod what it is. PortalPlayer (the design company) actually delivered many iterations of the iPod that was much different from the final product. Each time, Jobs sent the device back with a laundry list of things wrong with it. Stuff that seemed completely out of place (e.g. extra bass boost because Jobs was slightly deaf) went into the design. PortalPlayer thought it was going to flop horribly after all the demands that Jobs had made. It was quite a shock to them when the iPod grabbed the market overnight.
So I would take this story with a grain of salt. If Samsung doesn't realize that they've got a cat in the bag, they will soon enough.
Is it just me, or is anyone else vaguely unsettled by the weird way some people talk about "The Convergence"?
<Morpheus>No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</Morpheus>
You think people will actually go for having their filesystem drivers written in Java?
No, I don't. That's why if you read the article, you'll find that I discounted the concept as unpracticable. It's the part after that, that's interesting.
Re:Save some money!
on
Inescapable Data
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Save yourself $1.20 by buying the book here
Here's a better idea: Save yourself some money and don't buy the book at all!
I make a point of not purchasing books that I can't understand the description for. (Did anyone follow this story, or did everyone else sort of glaze over before any sort of understanding surfaced?)
Re:I'll tell you the future of blogging
on
The Future of the Blog
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You've pretty much described the current state of things.
1 - Blogging tools get a little easier
It hasn't been hard for a long time. Anyone can go to blogger.com and get a blog in like (*snap*) that.
2 - Multimedia blogging gets a little easier, but won't get heavily adopted for a long time
There are already various Video Blogging services, some with their own "easy to use" software. The problem is that it's all DULL. I'm mean, mind-numbingly-boring type dull. At least when people write, many try to apply some of the lessons they learned in school. But as this fellow demonstrates, many of the video bloggers just talk into the camera rather than developing a scripted session. ("Here [Uhh] I'm trying the [Uhh] JNode graphics. It doesn't [Uhh] look like it [Uhh] works. [Uhh] Here's a [Uhh] screenshot from their [Uhh] website.")
3 - Many many many more people blog
I honestly wish that many of them would go away or make them private. The world does not need to hear what your dog did today.
4 - Mainstream backlash from all the BS out there
There's plenty of that.:-)
Just read the general comments in any forum and you'll note a lot of hostility toward bloggers. I use my blog as a method for publishing articles, but that doesn't stop people from dissing it before they bother reading.
5 - Really good tools finally crop up to make finding what you're interested in easier (Technorati but 200 times better)
Granted, Technorati is likely to get you more results. However, much of Technorati's results are link-fest garbage or one-line, throw-away "journals".
6 - Many of the worst blogs die away as the good reading tools (and people using them) ignore them
Like Google Search does.;-)
7 - If you're not one of the top 100 blogs of these tools you're basically ignored, disgruntling a LOT of people
I don't know about top 100. For example, I just did a blog search to see if I could find anyone who's gotten a free Niagara server from Sun yet. The results were very informative. (Lots of people applied, but no one has yet reported getting one. Hmmm.)
8 - A few thousand great blogs stay up for years, many consolidating, and any of the rest come and go quickly
That would be even stupider. Not only would the general public turn to pirating over the 'net, but the lawyers would unleash such a slew of anti-trust, consumer protection, and conspiracy lawsuits that the movie industry would be forced to switch back after massive losses on all fronts.
I'm going for "how little we understand the universe". All our theories are nice and tidy, but none of them really predict the organized chaos of the universe. They only describe what is possible, probably, or unlikely. Thus every once in a while we come across something that we didn't expect, or (even better) we come across something our current theories can't explain. (Which then results in a greater understanding of the universe, and an update to our theories.):-)
If it's locked to your player, it's no good to anyone that buys it from you.
That sounds like a great way to kill sales. I mean, how many consumers have more than one TV in their home? (And by extension, more than one DVD player?) Not to mention the number of people who loan their discs out to friends and family. If consumers suddenly find themselves unable to move their disc around (especially if they purchase a new TV/player), they're not going to buy. They'll tell the industry "screw you" and go get their content some other way. Unfortunately for the industry, if there's no legal method for getting HD content, they'll just get it illegally over the 'net until there is.
So the industry had better think long and hard about how much they really want to be pushing consumers.
Most piracy is conducted over the internet, which is digital media? OK. I don't think this is going to stop, slow down, or hamper piracy in any way.
The intended effect is to have a secure pathway from the media right up to your eyeballs. Adding protection like this attempts to defeat any would-be crackers who intend to steal the media by recording the digital stream rather than trying to break the DRM on the disk.
Of course, if HD DVD is going to screw over early HDTV owners, I can see only one market response: A small digital to composite converter that you plug in between the player and the TV. It would securly decode the data into a high-res composite stream, then send that to the television. Voila! We're back to sqaure one.
I wonder when content owners are going to realize that encryption is not the answer? Encryption requires two way trust. (The sender and the receiver.) It's intended to keep out parties ancillary to the communications, not lock out the receiver from making copies.
I wonder if Sun would foot the bill to 'upgrade' slashdot to this new line of machines...
Maybe. All CowboyNeal really needs to do is order a free machine for a test drive and write his review. If the marketeers like it, he gets to keep it at no charge. If he doesn't want it, he can return it with postage paid. If he still wants it anyway, he can fork over the cashola and enjoy his new server upgrades. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like a win/win situation.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I found "Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus" to not be that helpful. On the other hand, I still use "The Zen of Graphics" (1996, Abrash) (just a subset of games, true, but probably the trickiest one to do well) from time to time even today.
:-)
:-)
I find that rather amusing, actually. I ran into the exact opposite. I found Abrash's works to go out of date and relevence much faster than LaMothe's more comprehensive, but perhaps less detailed, books.
I don't generally see the point of books that abstract themselves away from the process so that you're looking at little more than sweeping concepts with a few cheap examples behind them.
Eh? I hardly think that Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus was that abstract. Certainly not focused on the 3D engine for Quake (which it predated by a couple years), but it does lay the groundwork in a developer's mind for the entirity of the gaming industry. Sure, I've outgrown the information the book contains, but the ideas it helped me understand back in '94 (Video Scanning, Sprites, Parallel vs. Perspective, an intro to 3D Mathematics, etc.) formed a solid basis for my works today. Most of the info learned translated into the 3D world because he taught the most important thing a programmer can possibly learn about gaming: Stop worrying about how others did it (if I hear one more "How do I code Quake III?" question, I'm going to throttle someone), and figure out your own method.
I suppose that the message really hit me more because of my background as a home schooler. LaMothe's message built on top of the message I grew up with: Education is not about what you know, it's about learning how to learn. The former stops when school is over. The latter lasts a lifetime.
Also things like how to optimize *properly*
I actually cringe when I think about half the stuff that Abrash taught. Sure, it was necessary back then (you didn't have cycles to waste), but I fear that far too many programmers came away with the idea of premature optimization rather than a far more effetive method of optimizing:
Step 1: Use a faster Algorithm.
Step 2: Make it work.
Step 3: THEN look to optimize only the most critical sections.
Step 4: Repeat as necessarily.
Or as the famous "first rule of optimization" goes, "Don't." Quickly followed by the second rule (for experts only), "Don't yet."
discussion of what the human eye will and won't notice
I've learned that this has to be revisited every few years. The human eye is a very tricky thing. As technology progresses, we need to reevaluate what works well with current rendering technology. Certainly, assuming that you MUST maintain a stable, VSynced framerate rendered 100% offscreen is a bit naive (though it did look so smoooooth on those old Pong machines, didn't it?), but there's so much more to fooling the eye. Especially since the topic is far reaching, and covers all types of graphics. Not just games.
In any case, I'm getting off track here. There used to be some really great books on game programming. There are still probably a few of them (I keep hearing good things about the Gems series), but I'm not certain I'm all that impressed by the majority of the market. Especially when compared to the really great books we grew up on.
The comparison is that one did something useful, while the other one doesn't. Or to steal from the forward of "The Theory of Fun":
The book smacks of trying to make an artist out of someone by explaining what an easel, brush, and paints are rather than teaching him to paint while encouraging his creative side.
Gaming has always been about what "feels" right. A good game could be a few tweaks away from a really horrible game, but it's impossible to know unless someone with a creative side jumps in and adds their creative side to it. Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus took the right approach back in the day. It taught you to "paint" while encouraging you to apply your creativeness and artistic side to it. This attempt at "patterns" feels cold, detached, and a very poor attempt at convering what a designer really needs to learn. If you really feel that you need a book on design independent from programming, then something like A Theory of Fun is a far better choice. At least the author recognizes that games are warm things that can't be so easily quantified. (Though I question the concept of separating a tradesmaster from his trade. Would a building, no matter how beautiful, be designed by an architect lacking in engineering background?)
#1 Why point it out when the reviewer has just recommended NOT to purchase this book?
#2 Did you notice that someone already pointed out the Amazon link?
#3 Folks around here are generally pretty hostile toward the Amazon vs. BN thing. It's not wise to point it out again and draw their wrath.
#4 Fix your filename. It should be called "mustang_bluecurve.png", not "mustant_bluecurve.png".
Cheerio!
1994: The computer scientist and game programmer Andre LaMothe writes the quintessential book on game programming, "Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus". The book is dense with useful information, humor, and actual theory on game programming. Millions of Game Players are transformed into real-world Game Programmers overnight.
:-(
2004: Staffan Bjork & Jussi Holopainen attempt to bring all the wonder and excitement of development patterns from the business world into the Game Programming world by releasing an utterly boring book full of confusing terminology. (2.5 stars on Amazon.) Programmers everywhere are unimpressed, and budding game makers are left confused. The bright side is that the book explains what an Avatar and High Score List are.
My, my, my. How far we have progressed.
They haven't changed their mind about anything. The only reason why Nintendo defended their rights so vigorously is because they realized that a market existed for the old games. That's why about half of the Gameboy Advance games are actually re-releases of old Nintendo games. The point of keeping the emulation scene under control was so that Nintendo could charge players for old stuff all over again.
I'm sure there's a lively debate in here somewhere about how people used to own many of the games they emulate, and whether or not the laws should actually support what Nintendo is doing. What it comes down to, though, is that Nintendo understands the value in the old stuff and still making money off it.
See this link for a list of the games Nintendo rereleased for the Advance.
FYI, on the Intellivision Lives! disk. Apparently, all the games on the Lives! CDROM are actual ROMs from the system. So you should be able to copy them to a MythTV system, -OR- track down an original Intellivision system (just got mine; man is Blackjack addictive!) and purchase a used Intellicart to play the games on the original system.
Part of the reason why they do this is that the company was founded by the Blue Sky Rangers, the original Intellivision development team. So they know the Intellivision inside and out. With all the psuedo-companies parading around as the original thing these days, one has to give the Blue Sky Rangers kudos for actually being the real thing.
Now if only we could get them to produce this cool idea instead of this stupid thing.
If I were to hazard a guess, the problem has to do with the fact that there are two Ataris. "Atari" was the home system producer while "Atari Games" was the arcade game producer. (Infogrames bought the home system company and now operates under the name "Atari".) Since there are two companies, there may have been some confusion over who owned what. If Atari Games was the one who licensed with StarROMs (which would make sense) they might have run afoul of Infotari who was producing the Flashback 2.0 Plug and Play system.
Games like Pacman (Namco), Joust (Williams), and Space Invaders (Taito) were never owned by Atari, even though Atari did license the rights for home editions. StarROMs never managed to cultivate a relationship with any company other than Atari.
Can anyone shed any more light on the current situation?
Considering that I've never heard about them until today, I'd say that StarROMs had some serious marketing issues. Now that I hear about them and actually want to try their service, they're out of business? Sometimes the world just isn't fair.
In any case, I did a few background checks on StarROMs and I've come to the following conclusions. Let me know if the rest of you agree or disagree:
1. They didn't market enough. I'd heard about such a service in passing, but never found any concrete information. Had they made themselves more visible, perhaps they would have done better.
2. Game selection. With the release of the Flashback 2 and other Atari wares, it's become pretty clear which games Atari feels it has the rights to, and which ones it doesn't. Thus, just like Atari did back in the 1980's, they're recycling the same tired games over and over and over again. (No, I don't want to play Pong Yet Again(TM).) This article discusses how upset that StarROMs was that they didn't gain more industry support.
3. Price. Originally the files were $5 a piece. It looks like many went as low as $2. Given that Atari was probably chewing up a lot of that fee as licensing, I can't see how they made a profit.
Rest in Peace StarROMs. I wish I knew you better.
...then attach a cat's feet to the buttered side, thus creating a gravitational paradox. (Cat must land on its feet, but the butter must land down.) The result is an antigravity cup that is incapable of falling. Just imagine, a coffee cup that hangs in midair! Just like the Jetsons!
Don't tell me that you're still sore at Kirk for the whole Kobayashi Maru thing, are you? I mean, he did cheat fair and sqaure. :-P
I think the reason why the judges liked this entry was because it was a practical engineering solution similar to what you'd see in the real world. While every engineer wishes that a magic material would come along to solve all their problems (and on rare occasions they do get that wish), most of the time an engineer is forced to make the type of tradeoff seen in the coffee cup. I seriously doubt this solution will be accepted more than once, though, so I expect that you're doubly screwed. Sorry.
How hard would it be to convince some average uses that the worm/virus/trojan that they're downloading is actually an amazing tool to "tweak" some aspect of their computer's performance (internet/speed/ram/etc...)?
The difference between the security hole approach and the social engineering approach, is that the latter starts and ends with stupid users. The worm cannot force its way onto the computers of more savy users like the RPC worms in Windows did. Instead, it will set off a huge number of warning flags with more experienced users, and perhaps prompt them to take action to clean other user's computers or encourage them not to run anything that asks for their password.
The end result is that such viruses could not spread as fast or as far as their Windows counterparts.
He's probably doing what's he's always been doing: Laughing all the way to the bank.
Samsung's hiring of the same designer is nothing more than marketing hype. What Samsung hopes the public fails to realize, is that Steve Jobs is the guy who made the iPod what it is. PortalPlayer (the design company) actually delivered many iterations of the iPod that was much different from the final product. Each time, Jobs sent the device back with a laundry list of things wrong with it. Stuff that seemed completely out of place (e.g. extra bass boost because Jobs was slightly deaf) went into the design. PortalPlayer thought it was going to flop horribly after all the demands that Jobs had made. It was quite a shock to them when the iPod grabbed the market overnight.
So I would take this story with a grain of salt. If Samsung doesn't realize that they've got a cat in the bag, they will soon enough.
[Reference Article]
but when has the mass consumer market ever told the industry "screw you"?
I don't know what else to call Napster. It was pretty much the biggest "screw you" ever seen in the history of entertainment.
Is it just me, or is anyone else vaguely unsettled by the weird way some people talk about "The Convergence"?
:-P
<Morpheus>No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</Morpheus>
Yep, sounds about the same.
You think people will actually go for having their filesystem drivers written in Java?
No, I don't. That's why if you read the article, you'll find that I discounted the concept as unpracticable. It's the part after that, that's interesting.
Save yourself $1.20 by buying the book here
Here's a better idea: Save yourself some money and don't buy the book at all!
I make a point of not purchasing books that I can't understand the description for. (Did anyone follow this story, or did everyone else sort of glaze over before any sort of understanding surfaced?)
Hilarity ensues.
You've pretty much described the current state of things.
:-)
;-)
:-)
1 - Blogging tools get a little easier
It hasn't been hard for a long time. Anyone can go to blogger.com and get a blog in like (*snap*) that.
2 - Multimedia blogging gets a little easier, but won't get heavily adopted for a long time
There are already various Video Blogging services, some with their own "easy to use" software. The problem is that it's all DULL. I'm mean, mind-numbingly-boring type dull. At least when people write, many try to apply some of the lessons they learned in school. But as this fellow demonstrates, many of the video bloggers just talk into the camera rather than developing a scripted session. ("Here [Uhh] I'm trying the [Uhh] JNode graphics. It doesn't [Uhh] look like it [Uhh] works. [Uhh] Here's a [Uhh] screenshot from their [Uhh] website.")
3 - Many many many more people blog
I honestly wish that many of them would go away or make them private. The world does not need to hear what your dog did today.
4 - Mainstream backlash from all the BS out there
There's plenty of that.
Just read the general comments in any forum and you'll note a lot of hostility toward bloggers. I use my blog as a method for publishing articles, but that doesn't stop people from dissing it before they bother reading.
5 - Really good tools finally crop up to make finding what you're interested in easier (Technorati but 200 times better)
blogsearch.google.com
Granted, Technorati is likely to get you more results. However, much of Technorati's results are link-fest garbage or one-line, throw-away "journals".
6 - Many of the worst blogs die away as the good reading tools (and people using them) ignore them
Like Google Search does.
7 - If you're not one of the top 100 blogs of these tools you're basically ignored, disgruntling a LOT of people
I don't know about top 100. For example, I just did a blog search to see if I could find anyone who's gotten a free Niagara server from Sun yet. The results were very informative. (Lots of people applied, but no one has yet reported getting one. Hmmm.)
8 - A few thousand great blogs stay up for years, many consolidating, and any of the rest come and go quickly
As it already is.
That would be even stupider. Not only would the general public turn to pirating over the 'net, but the lawyers would unleash such a slew of anti-trust, consumer protection, and conspiracy lawsuits that the movie industry would be forced to switch back after massive losses on all fronts.
Are they really that stupid? (Don't answer that.)
I'm going for "how little we understand the universe". All our theories are nice and tidy, but none of them really predict the organized chaos of the universe. They only describe what is possible, probably, or unlikely. Thus every once in a while we come across something that we didn't expect, or (even better) we come across something our current theories can't explain. (Which then results in a greater understanding of the universe, and an update to our theories.) :-)
Doesn't anyone read SciFi anymore? It's the Omega clouds! And when they get here, they'll wipe out every square corner on Earth! Run for the hills! :-P
If it's locked to your player, it's no good to anyone that buys it from you.
That sounds like a great way to kill sales. I mean, how many consumers have more than one TV in their home? (And by extension, more than one DVD player?) Not to mention the number of people who loan their discs out to friends and family. If consumers suddenly find themselves unable to move their disc around (especially if they purchase a new TV/player), they're not going to buy. They'll tell the industry "screw you" and go get their content some other way. Unfortunately for the industry, if there's no legal method for getting HD content, they'll just get it illegally over the 'net until there is.
So the industry had better think long and hard about how much they really want to be pushing consumers.
Most piracy is conducted over the internet, which is digital media? OK. I don't think this is going to stop, slow down, or hamper piracy in any way.
The intended effect is to have a secure pathway from the media right up to your eyeballs. Adding protection like this attempts to defeat any would-be crackers who intend to steal the media by recording the digital stream rather than trying to break the DRM on the disk.
Of course, if HD DVD is going to screw over early HDTV owners, I can see only one market response: A small digital to composite converter that you plug in between the player and the TV. It would securly decode the data into a high-res composite stream, then send that to the television. Voila! We're back to sqaure one.
I wonder when content owners are going to realize that encryption is not the answer? Encryption requires two way trust. (The sender and the receiver.) It's intended to keep out parties ancillary to the communications, not lock out the receiver from making copies.
Geniuses. All of them. (*rolls eyes*)
I wonder if Sun would foot the bill to 'upgrade' slashdot to this new line of machines...
:-)
Maybe. All CowboyNeal really needs to do is order a free machine for a test drive and write his review. If the marketeers like it, he gets to keep it at no charge. If he doesn't want it, he can return it with postage paid. If he still wants it anyway, he can fork over the cashola and enjoy his new server upgrades. From where I'm sitting, it sounds like a win/win situation.