The writing was on the wall back when Windows Media 4 (I think) came out in 1998. Microsoft was entering into direct competition with Liquid Audio and LA pretty much knew it was fucked.
LA certainly gave it the college try in attempting to bring major labor music to the masses, but they failed. Pretty much entirely due to a lack of cooperation from the major labels who were constantly trying to hedge the various internet music companies agaisnt each other. They didn't want to end up being "locked in" to a particular company like what happened with MTV.
Before MacOS X was released, Liquid Audio had a player for MacOS 9. It was one of the very best MP3/Audio players available at the time. There were lots of Mac/ProTools alumnni at LA and they really wanted to promote LA on the Mac platform.
If you want to blame someone for why they dropped Mac support, I'm probably the person to blame. When I worked there I was doing all the Mac support and I was the one who pointed out that less than 1% of our consumers (Player customers) were on Mac. A higher percentage of producers were using Mac (because of ProTools) but when LA more or less abandoned the commercial music side of the business they trickled off as well.
Basically, the Mac Player wasn't worth the development effort it took to keep it updated because Mac users represented such a tiny fraction of the user base.
How about this: A gun license should be as hard to get as a driver's license.
This would mean a written exam on safty, a practical exam on basic marksmanship, maintanience, and safety.
The already works this way in many states, including my state of California. This is yet another example of why we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the existing laws.
Gun inspections like car inspections would probably be too difficult for existing guns. But at least an inspection for new firearms, to ensure they're being sold with triggerlocks and the like. I can understand why some people wouldn't want a triggerlock on (I think they're stupid, since they're much more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, but that's a compelling fantasy for many). But I think every gun should have one, so that it has to be a proactive choice to not use one.
Since trigger locks are basically pointless, I don't see why they should be required. Modern firearms already have lots of safety features to prevent accidental discharge. There is no evidence that trigger locks accomplish much of anything.
As for general inspections, firearms are generally some of the most reliable mechanical devices known to man. Firearm design is EXTREMELY conservative to maintain maximum safety and reliability. There are Colt.45s made in the 1850's that perform as well today as they did 150 years ago. A modern firearm purchased today will almost certaily outlast it's owner, even if it's poorly maintained.
I'm sure the NRA would frantically hate this idea, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing that people who bought guns legally at least demonstrated that they could pick "no" on a multiple choice test asking "is it okay to leave a loaded gun in the bedside table."
It is because they justifiably see the possiblity that such tests will be descriminatory, designed to prevent perfectly law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Beyond this, 2nd ammendment advocates consider firearms ownership a fundamental right, not a privlidge like a driver's license. They are aware that under such a regime relatively trivial issues will be used to prevent gun ownership. For example, they could implement laws that ban ownership to anyone convicted of a misdemanor or recent immigrants, or maybe ALL immigrants.
I call bullshit. Gangs fight other gangs. All gangs are equally well-armed, effectively. Each gang knows how well armed their enemies are. And the gangs still fight each other.
Actually, they do care, but not in the way you would think. Street gangs tend to make most of their money from drug sales, and a lot of gang violence is over sales territory or profits.
Gangsters are turning away from robbery simply because it isn't profitable. You rob a half dozen people in the ghetto and you might come up with $100 or $200. And any one of those guys could be packing and decide to cap your ass. In fact, as a ganster pulling in drug profits you are FAR more likey to have lots of cash on hand than anyone else. YOU'RE the sort of person that has to worry about getting robbed. So strangely enough, a lot of gangster/drug dealers initally get firearms for SELF-DEFENSE against other gangsters.
If you stop and think about it, firearms aren't really the issue. They just make things more lethal. If the preferred weapon was knives, the gangsters would just be stabbing each other. The real problem is the profits the street-level dealers can make from drug sales.
Well, as I pointed out here and elsewhere, the RIAA etc. is very aware that a large, non-crippled, commercial downloading service would be very popular and make a considerable amount of money. Studies have been done, etc. Trust me that the RIAA knows this for a fact.
However those same studies have shown then that such a regime would end up making them significantly less money than they do now (for various reasons, mainly related to the profits on album vs. per song downloads). I can't stress enough how much effort has been put into coming to this conclusion by the RIIA/Record labels and various technology companies.
Knowing this, they are simply unwilling to jepordize their album sales by building a large-scale, effective and popular downloading service (which could be done EASILY).
They won't change until they're FORCED to by a major drop in CD album sales (at least 30%). So if you want legal downloadable music stop buying CDs. Pirate for a while if you prefer.
Liquid Audio was offering custom-made CDRs in a shop in Seoul, Korea 3 years ago. At the time, they had a wide selection of Korean music and it's my uderstanding that the project did very well.
Actually, I am getting the sense that Slashdot is becoming more and more dominated by mp3 traders who spout empty slogans like "Information wants to be free" or "Oh, I don't like the cost of CDs, so it's perfectly OK for me to copy them and share them with all my friends".
The RIAA is an illegal cartel that fixes prices and cheats consumers. They have used political influence to avoid serious sanction or prosecution. This is an undisputed fact.
Given this fact, let's talk about morality for a second: Is it morally wrong to steal from evil people? I would say emphatically NO.
Now I'm sure you will say "What about the artists? It's not their fault! They're just trying to make a living."
This is the "we're just following orders" argument. Musicians that work for the Big 5 record labels a knowingly working for a corrupt and evil organization that seeks to cheat consumers. If they want to put out their music they can do so through indie labels, but then they won't become RICH. You'll find that piracy of acts on indie labels is far less common (mainly because such acts are less popular).
However, ignoring the RIAA/MPAA/etc. and sticking to "indie" content won't slove anything. The RIAA/MPAA/etc. are making changes to laws and content delivery system that will affect every last media consumer in the world. The large members of these companies also actively seek to crush the "indie" marked using their monopoly power (like denying indie bands radio airplay, for example).
How will pirating their content help then? Well, it will cost them money. Eventually it will cost them enough money such that they will either have to change their business or go OUT of business. I feel a bit sorry for media producers that may lose thier jobs, but I lost my job during the.com collapse and you don't see me whining. Nobody has guarenteed employment in the USA. And besides, with the collapse of the Big 5 it is likely that a huge "indie" scene would develop, and people who lose their jobs could be part of that.
This is ignoring the fact that there are many people that want to be able to copy media content for perfectly legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with 'stealing content'. Like people that want to be able to make mix CDs, or transfer legally purchased CD content into MP3 jukeboxes. For a personal example, I made CDR backups of pretty much all my Playstation games because the PS1 would damage the originals and eventually the discs would become unplayable. Playing off of backups and preserving the originals solved this problem.
Well thanks for the link, but I don't buy that even slightly. You're trying to support a claim that a 100 pound man, with scrap steel from a nearby junkyard, was able to build some magical device which was capable of moving rocks up to 30 tonnes around?
First of all, you're talking it on faith that he had no assistance. This is unlikely despite the APPARANT lack of testimonials. Construction happened about 60-80 years ago, so it's entirely possible that all his assistants are dead.
Second, a dozen college students with no modern tools have been able to construct obelisks and pyramids in experiments based on replicating the work of the ancients. Perhaps not on the scale of Coral Castle (there is a limit to what you can do in a weekend), but it is possible.
Third, Coral Castle is the major tourist attraction in Florida City. The locals have a vested interest in keeping the "mystery" going. So the locals would NEVER lie about the authenticity of the Castle, nor hint at "mysterious" forces surrounding it's construction.
The fact is, nobody, including modern engineers, have the slightest clue how he was able to manipulate such enormous loads at all, much less with the astounding precision demonstrated. Did you read that link I sent?
Yes, I read the link, and I wasn't impressed. The fact it that it's certainlly possible that a single man, with access to limited heavy equipment (he had access to tractors and trucks), and access to plenty of scrap steel for framing, and lots of time, it's entirely possible.
I have no idea if qualified modern engineers have examined the Castle, and neither do you. There are no verifiable sources given in any of the links I visited.
Apply Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, that Leedskalnin empoloyed well-known conventional means to build his Castle, or that Leedskalnin had magic powers?
Once, the driver absentmindedly returned after less than half an hour for a lunchpail he had forgotten on the seat of the tractor. He was astounded to see several multi-ton stones already laid neatly on the girders. "It was impossible to have stacked those gigantic blocks in under 30 minutes," he recalled, "even with a steam-powered derrick. And Ed had no equipment, just a simple tackle and chain hoist. Yet, there they were, piled like cord wood.'
You might notice something about this story. It's apocryptal. Notice how the driver is only identified as "driver"? There is no way to verify this story. I'd bet that this story comes from Leedskalnin himself.
I think Sony owns something around 40% of Square, that's why I reffered to it as "practically first-party". It doesn't matter if square lost a lot of money, all that proves is that they had a lot of money TO LOSE because they were so successful selling FF VII for the PS1. The FF series is very important to Sony, so Sony is keeping them afloat.
I've read an endless series of great reviews for MechAssualt: Gamespot 9.0, Editor's Choice, IGN 9.2, GamesDomain 4.5 out of 5, Top Game, etc. And visually it looks stunning. So forgive me, but based upon the reviews I'd buy MechAssault first.
Mario's shines were good, but it was just Mario64++. I think Zelda will be a great hit, though.
I think the whole franchise itself is getting a bit old and dated. They haven't really kept it fresh like Square did with FF. Though I was never really a big fan of Mario and Zelda to begin with. I actually think Pokemon is a much more valuable franchise at this point.
Unlike the GameGear (which had no decent games), and the Saturn (which was hard to develop for, leading to fewer games), the Dreamcast had a lot of great titles. However, Sony's FUD about the PS2 kept adoption lower than it otherwise would've been. Once the PS2 finally released, people started to buy it because it could do PS1 games and DVD movies, with the expectation that good PS2 games would also come out. My opinion is that no such good games ever did come out.
I would agree with everything but the last part. It's only in the past year that really good games for the PS2, like GTA3 and Kingdom Hearts, have been released. The launch titles basically sucked. The real reason the Dreamcast failed is because Sega didn't have the marketing money Sony had, and Sega was poorly run in general.
I'm still a proud Dreamcast owner. It remains *THE* platform for fighting games, which is primarily what I want a console for.
As for MS' situation, I think you're overstating it. It's still too soon to make such judgements. The PS2 is showing its age, and Microsoft has just started to lever their online service. Nintendo, unlike Microsoft and Sony, has a strong history of first-party games that rock (it's how they brought gaming back to life in the early 1980s, and the major flaw of Sony and MS -- no strong game branding exists on those platforms that is first-party).
FWIW, Square is effectively a first-party for Sony and they have the extremely lucrative Final Fantasy franchise. Sony also has GTA and Metal Gear Solid.
Microsoft has Mechassault, which is a continuation of the popular FASA "Mech" games.
Of course, none of these are a big as Mario or Zelda, but they're beginning to lose their shine a bit.
I'm not making this up. Next time you're watching TV, keep an eye out for game commercials. There are a few Nintendo-only commercials, fewer Xbox-only commercials, and the rest advertise support for every hardware platform under the sun except Xbox. You're more likely to see "Available for PS2, GCN and GBA" than "Available for PS2, GCN and Xbox."
I've seen tons of TV ads for Buffy and Mechassault, which are XBox exclusives. XBox is also a platform for many of the recent games I've seen ads for like BloodRayne, Defender, Lord of the Rings, and Medal of Honor: Frontline.
In fact, I'd say the "exclusive" TV advertising is about equal from what I can tell. I'd probably give the edge to PS2 for all of the GTA: Vice City and Kingdom Hearts ads I've seen.
Also I think Xbox live might make them more of a viable competitor, from what I've heard it's a better user experience compared to Nintendo and Sony's online offerings, albeit a pay service. I know several people who have bought Xboxes recently just for Xbox live. So who knows, it will be interesting to see where these console wars go.
The only significant advantage the XBox has over the PS2 in the marketplace is broadband gaming, now known as XBox Live!.
If XBox Live! is a failure, the XBox is doomed. MS knows this, so they've gone to great lengths to make XBox Live! as good an online service as possible, and I think the've largely succeeded. But is boradband gaming big enough to allow them to succeed in a GLOBAL marketplace? Doubtful.
PS2 has already won this round of the console wars. If XBox Live! takes off BIG, MS has a chance of winning round 2 against the PS3.
The only games I see advertized for Xbox are only for Xbox (which suggests poor third-party support), and they've now resorted to the marketing gimmick of giving away free games with the console.
The XBox has about 75% of the library of the PS2, not counting PS1 titles. The XBox has excellent third -party support, it's the GameCube that is suffering in this regard.
And virtually every console ever made has has game bundles. Includign such "failures" as the PS1 and NES.
Therefore, you don't see much GameCube warez or modchips floating about, compared to the PS2 and Xbox scene.
Using non-standard media pisses off deveoplers becasue it makes it harder to testbed. This reduces the number of third-party developers willing to produce games for the platform. Notice how the GC has fewer 3rd-party titles than the other two consoles? This is one of the big reasons (the main reason is bad blood from the N64). Nintendo did the same thing with the N64, and look what a success THAT was.
And if the GameCube didn't have two more popular competitors it would likely have a bigger modding community. The NES had plenty of mods, pirate carts, etc. and it was a proprietary format. Along the same lines, notice the active modding community for the GameBoy Advance.
In effect, the lack of a modding community for the GameCube is really just evidence of it's relative unpopularity. At least with customers sophisticated enough to recognize the benefits of modding (read: not young kids).
Many posters seem to be operating under the delusion that the MS/Sony/Nintendo lawsuit has been filed in the USA, even going so far as to cite the DMCA.
This is false, the lawsuit was filed in Hong Kong, a city-state notable for having some of the weakest copyright protections in the industrialized world. "Pirate" products of all sorts (everything from pirate PS1s to Gucci ripoffs) are sold openly in Hong Kong. And this isn't even a pirate product, just a modification to an existing product. I'm far from an expert on Hong Kong law, but I don't think HK has anything even remotely similar to the DMCA.
Of course, Microsoft etc. could easily win by bribing the PRC. This wouldn't help them against the 500 other "Lik-Sangs" that would leap in to fill the void.
Any system involving "bans" will inevitably lead to "false" bans. This was all played before with Blizzard and Blizzard.net over Diablo. You needed a login and CD-Key to get onto Blizzard.net, but the warez kids made up CD-Key generators. Keep trying until you got one that worked, nevermind that there is probably a legitimate owner that already has that key.
The same thing is going on with X-Box Live!. "Mod-chipped" XBoxes are being banned, but the various mods for XBoxes don't work in a consistant way, so the "net" has to be cast pretty far, resulting in "false" bans and lots of complaints to customer service. In practice, they HAVE to let anyone who complains access XBox Live! (there is legal and RP fallout for doing so). So in practice, all you have to do is mod your X-Box and then call customer service and complain that you were banned unfairly.
This is ignoring the fact that modchip groups have ALREADY figured out how the detection on XBox Live! works and modchips will arrive in the next 2-3 months that are compatible with XBox Live!.
It is certainly POSSIBLE to make cellphones for less that $50. Remember those guys making disposable cellphones. I think what the author was trying to say was that a device based on cellular technology would probably be more feasible.
I also question the feasiblity of "sharing" a handheld. It's really small, and really easy for someone to steal. I think a fixed, kiosk-style, system would be a better bet, but it would have tougher power requirements. Maybe solar panels (like they use for cell towers in remote areas)? Of course, this would drive up the cost.
I like this paper, which is a rundown on watermarking, DRM, and the "darknet" (basically, illegal content traffic).
My favorite part is this bit at the end:
"Additionally, the cost-per-bit, and the total size of the objects have a huge bearing on the competitiveness of today's darknets compared with legal trade. For example, today's peer-to-peer technologies provide excellent service quality for audio files, but users must be very determined or price-sensitive to download movies from a darknet, when the legal competition is a rental for a few dollars."
If you read between the lines, what they're basically saying is that MP3s are being pirated because CDs cost too much. Perhaps this is common sense, but it's nice to hear people from companies like Microsoft saying it.
Actually, this is nothing new. I heard exactly the same sort of talk at SDMI meetings among participants. The only companies talking "seriously" about watermarking and DRM working were mostly startups based solely on selling these new products. Basically, snake oil salesmen. And everybody knew it. Everyone was also generally disgusted by the Big 5's stalling and recitince. You might notice that SDMI went nowhere. The ones to blame for that were the Big 5, who were never seriously interested in making SDMI work.
Long ago, the Big 5 (correctly) decided that legal tactics were their best bet to stop "piracy". The only reason DRM is even being seriously discussed is because of legal failures (like the Diamond Multimedia Rio MP3 case). It is virtually certain that the MPAA will lose the SonicBlue ReplayTV case (btw, SonicBlue was formerly Diamond Multimedia).
Also, it increasinly looks like the only effective DRM strategies will involve changing the hardware and the hardware manufacturers will probably be extremely resistant to this (for many reasons). And they have money and weight in Washington. Lest anyone drag out DVD/CSS, that's a special case. The DVD format succeeded DESPITE CSS, not because of it. If you remember, some studios held off in favor of Divx, which was a total failure in the marketplace. Basically becasue Divx was simply a castrated from od DVD, a format already available.
In order for DRM to succeed in new hardware products, those products MUST offer very attractive new funtionality. DVD was vstly superior to the formats it replaced (VHS and LaserDisc) in many ways. That's why it suceeded.
Virtually none of the DRM proposals I've seen have been tied to new formats or devices with dramatically improved functionality. They will fail.
There's a point past which you have to stop feeling bad for people who make certain decisions. Microsoft has a well-established history of being terrible with security, of treating it as a P.R. problem that can be fixed with lies as opposed to an engineering problem that can be fixed with quality programming. This is not an obscure fact known only to Linux kernel hackers. This is the news we're getting now on CNN and other mainstream news sources.
I suspect, despite scattered reports on CNN, most people are competely unaware that Windows has security problems. Most don't even know what "computer security" even means. "Informed" users would probably say something like "passwords" and thier eyes would glaze over at the term "remote root exploit". I have recieved such responses from IT PROFESSIONALS in many companies.
And, yes, it would be different if this were Linux, or BSD, or even MacOS. All those operating systems come with companies or communities who take security seriously, and they respect their users enough to not foist insecure features on them. You can have the reasonable expectation that running any of those OSes let you worry about security a lot less than running a Windoze variant.
There are as many or even more reported exploits for Linux than their are for Windows. There are virtually none reported for MacOSX. Despite the contradiction, both are more secure than windows by virtue of being more popular. Back when Solaris was THE internet OS you would see TONS of exploits for Sun. Now, not so much. MacOS 9 and earlier had virtually no security whatsoever, yet despite this there were few viruses and trojans becasue it was an unpopular OS.
It is almost certain that if BSD or Linux were as popular as Windows virtually all of the virus/trojan/exploit issues would be there. Linux, BSD, etc. effectively have a high degree of "security through obscurity" because the OS itself is relatively obscure.
This is not to say that some OSes, like OpenBSD, aren't fundamentally more secure. They are. But thet achieve these high levels of security by limiting functionality. For example, the default installation of Red Hat Linux has an open Telnet server. Clearly this is a possible security risk. However, if you close it dow, no more Telnet. Security vs. functionality.
You posted what can only be considered an ADVERTISEMENT for the Segway. Bricklin is downright fawning. The only criticism AT ALL of the vehicle is in a very short scetion called "Did you find any limits or problems?" in which he goes to great lengths to downplay the problems.
He fails to mention the battery life at any point during the two articles. He fails to mention that it requires many hours of charging. He fails to mention the price ($5000). He compares it to bicycles, but only in the most unfavorable light. He does not really compare it to any sort of motorized scooters like this one, which is 1/3 of the price of a Segway.
And before you laugh and state this is ridiculous and impossible, read up on the Coral Castle and try to explain it. (Not to mention the pyramids, stonehenge, etc)
From an article found <a href=http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/gordon_mic hael_scallion.html>here</a>:
"The fact is that Edward Leedskalnin [the builder of Coral Castle] lived near a junk yard. There he was able to get scrap steel to build simple devices for lifting blocks.... The idea that Edward Leedskalnin levitated blocks is an urban legend..."
Um, this may have to do with the fact that cars are driven in public more often than guns are shot in public. But, hey, if it doesn't support your argument, then common sense be damned, right?
Firearms are extermely common in the USA, over 300 million in circulation I'm told. From that I would bet that the number of firearm discharges (rounds fired) possibly outnumbers the amount of "driving incidents" every day. I think the numbers are at least comparable. Given that, the number of accidental firearms deaths is probably relatively low, given the number of firearm discharages.
Most fatal firearms accidents do not take place "in public". They usually happen in, or nearby, the home and are the result of mishandling a loaded firearm causing it to discharge.
Given the number of firearms in circulation (300 million) it is unlikely that even an immeadate total ban on firearms (remember that the statistics you see typically include police and military deaths) would solve the problem. OTOH, gun safety programs run by organizations like the NRA are PROVEN to reduce accidental firearm injury and death.
So if you really want to prevent accidental gun deaths, you should promote their safety programs. Particularly the Eddie Eagle program for children.
Slashdot Mirror
The writing was on the wall back when Windows Media 4 (I think) came out in 1998. Microsoft was entering into direct competition with Liquid Audio and LA pretty much knew it was fucked.
LA certainly gave it the college try in attempting to bring major labor music to the masses, but they failed. Pretty much entirely due to a lack of cooperation from the major labels who were constantly trying to hedge the various internet music companies agaisnt each other. They didn't want to end up being "locked in" to a particular company like what happened with MTV.
Before MacOS X was released, Liquid Audio had a player for MacOS 9. It was one of the very best MP3/Audio players available at the time. There were lots of Mac/ProTools alumnni at LA and they really wanted to promote LA on the Mac platform.
If you want to blame someone for why they dropped Mac support, I'm probably the person to blame. When I worked there I was doing all the Mac support and I was the one who pointed out that less than 1% of our consumers (Player customers) were on Mac. A higher percentage of producers were using Mac (because of ProTools) but when LA more or less abandoned the commercial music side of the business they trickled off as well.
Basically, the Mac Player wasn't worth the development effort it took to keep it updated because Mac users represented such a tiny fraction of the user base.
First, you tell me that I'm mistaken. But then nothing else you say contradicts anything I said. If we agree, then how am I mistaken?
Well, I'm saying that firearm deaths are a symptom of gang violence, not the cause. If we agree on that then I guess we don't disagree.
How about this: A gun license should be as hard to get as a driver's license.
.45s made in the 1850's that perform as well today as they did 150 years ago. A modern firearm purchased today will almost certaily outlast it's owner, even if it's poorly maintained.
This would mean a written exam on safty, a practical exam on basic marksmanship, maintanience, and safety.
The already works this way in many states, including my state of California. This is yet another example of why we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the existing laws.
Gun inspections like car inspections would probably be too difficult for existing guns. But at least an inspection for new firearms, to ensure they're being sold with triggerlocks and the like. I can understand why some people wouldn't want a triggerlock on (I think they're stupid, since they're much more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, but that's a compelling fantasy for many). But I think every gun should have one, so that it has to be a proactive choice to not use one.
Since trigger locks are basically pointless, I don't see why they should be required. Modern firearms already have lots of safety features to prevent accidental discharge. There is no evidence that trigger locks accomplish much of anything.
As for general inspections, firearms are generally some of the most reliable mechanical devices known to man. Firearm design is EXTREMELY conservative to maintain maximum safety and reliability. There are Colt
I'm sure the NRA would frantically hate this idea, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing that people who bought guns legally at least demonstrated that they could pick "no" on a multiple choice test asking "is it okay to leave a loaded gun in the bedside table."
It is because they justifiably see the possiblity that such tests will be descriminatory, designed to prevent perfectly law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Beyond this, 2nd ammendment advocates consider firearms ownership a fundamental right, not a privlidge like a driver's license. They are aware that under such a regime relatively trivial issues will be used to prevent gun ownership. For example, they could implement laws that ban ownership to anyone convicted of a misdemanor or recent immigrants, or maybe ALL immigrants.
I call bullshit. Gangs fight other gangs. All gangs are equally well-armed, effectively. Each gang knows how well armed their enemies are. And the gangs still fight each other.
Actually, they do care, but not in the way you would think. Street gangs tend to make most of their money from drug sales, and a lot of gang violence is over sales territory or profits.
Gangsters are turning away from robbery simply because it isn't profitable. You rob a half dozen people in the ghetto and you might come up with $100 or $200. And any one of those guys could be packing and decide to cap your ass. In fact, as a ganster pulling in drug profits you are FAR more likey to have lots of cash on hand than anyone else. YOU'RE the sort of person that has to worry about getting robbed. So strangely enough, a lot of gangster/drug dealers initally get firearms for SELF-DEFENSE against other gangsters.
If you stop and think about it, firearms aren't really the issue. They just make things more lethal. If the preferred weapon was knives, the gangsters would just be stabbing each other. The real problem is the profits the street-level dealers can make from drug sales.
No way!
Well, as I pointed out here and elsewhere, the RIAA etc. is very aware that a large, non-crippled, commercial downloading service would be very popular and make a considerable amount of money. Studies have been done, etc. Trust me that the RIAA knows this for a fact.
However those same studies have shown then that such a regime would end up making them significantly less money than they do now (for various reasons, mainly related to the profits on album vs. per song downloads). I can't stress enough how much effort has been put into coming to this conclusion by the RIIA/Record labels and various technology companies.
Knowing this, they are simply unwilling to jepordize their album sales by building a large-scale, effective and popular downloading service (which could be done EASILY).
They won't change until they're FORCED to by a major drop in CD album sales (at least 30%). So if you want legal downloadable music stop buying CDs. Pirate for a while if you prefer.
Liquid Audio was offering custom-made CDRs in a shop in Seoul, Korea 3 years ago. At the time, they had a wide selection of Korean music and it's my uderstanding that the project did very well.
Actually, I am getting the sense that Slashdot is becoming more and more dominated by mp3 traders who spout empty slogans like "Information wants to be free" or "Oh, I don't like the cost of CDs, so it's perfectly OK for me to copy them and share them with all my friends".
.com collapse and you don't see me whining. Nobody has guarenteed employment in the USA. And besides, with the collapse of the Big 5 it is likely that a huge "indie" scene would develop, and people who lose their jobs could be part of that.
The RIAA is an illegal cartel that fixes prices and cheats consumers. They have used political influence to avoid serious sanction or prosecution. This is an undisputed fact.
Given this fact, let's talk about morality for a second: Is it morally wrong to steal from evil people? I would say emphatically NO.
Now I'm sure you will say "What about the artists? It's not their fault! They're just trying to make a living."
This is the "we're just following orders" argument. Musicians that work for the Big 5 record labels a knowingly working for a corrupt and evil organization that seeks to cheat consumers. If they want to put out their music they can do so through indie labels, but then they won't become RICH. You'll find that piracy of acts on indie labels is far less common (mainly because such acts are less popular).
However, ignoring the RIAA/MPAA/etc. and sticking to "indie" content won't slove anything. The RIAA/MPAA/etc. are making changes to laws and content delivery system that will affect every last media consumer in the world. The large members of these companies also actively seek to crush the "indie" marked using their monopoly power (like denying indie bands radio airplay, for example).
How will pirating their content help then? Well, it will cost them money. Eventually it will cost them enough money such that they will either have to change their business or go OUT of business. I feel a bit sorry for media producers that may lose thier jobs, but I lost my job during the
This is ignoring the fact that there are many people that want to be able to copy media content for perfectly legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with 'stealing content'. Like people that want to be able to make mix CDs, or transfer legally purchased CD content into MP3 jukeboxes. For a personal example, I made CDR backups of pretty much all my Playstation games because the PS1 would damage the originals and eventually the discs would become unplayable. Playing off of backups and preserving the originals solved this problem.
Well thanks for the link, but I don't buy that even slightly. You're trying to support a claim that a 100 pound man, with scrap steel from a nearby junkyard, was able to build some magical device which was capable of moving rocks up to 30 tonnes around?
First of all, you're talking it on faith that he had no assistance. This is unlikely despite the APPARANT lack of testimonials. Construction happened about 60-80 years ago, so it's entirely possible that all his assistants are dead.
Second, a dozen college students with no modern tools have been able to construct obelisks and pyramids in experiments based on replicating the work of the ancients. Perhaps not on the scale of Coral Castle (there is a limit to what you can do in a weekend), but it is possible.
Third, Coral Castle is the major tourist attraction in Florida City. The locals have a vested interest in keeping the "mystery" going. So the locals would NEVER lie about the authenticity of the Castle, nor hint at "mysterious" forces surrounding it's construction.
The fact is, nobody, including modern engineers, have the slightest clue how he was able to manipulate such enormous loads at all, much less with the astounding precision demonstrated. Did you read that link I sent?
Yes, I read the link, and I wasn't impressed. The fact it that it's certainlly possible that a single man, with access to limited heavy equipment (he had access to tractors and trucks), and access to plenty of scrap steel for framing, and lots of time, it's entirely possible.
I have no idea if qualified modern engineers have examined the Castle, and neither do you. There are no verifiable sources given in any of the links I visited.
Apply Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, that Leedskalnin empoloyed well-known conventional means to build his Castle, or that Leedskalnin had magic powers?
Once, the driver absentmindedly returned after less than half an hour for a lunchpail he had forgotten on the seat of the tractor. He was astounded to see several multi-ton stones already laid neatly on the girders. "It was impossible to have stacked those gigantic blocks in under 30 minutes," he recalled, "even with a steam-powered derrick. And Ed had no equipment, just a simple tackle and chain hoist. Yet, there they were, piled like cord wood.'
You might notice something about this story. It's apocryptal. Notice how the driver is only identified as "driver"? There is no way to verify this story. I'd bet that this story comes from Leedskalnin himself.
I think Sony owns something around 40% of Square, that's why I reffered to it as "practically first-party". It doesn't matter if square lost a lot of money, all that proves is that they had a lot of money TO LOSE because they were so successful selling FF VII for the PS1. The FF series is very important to Sony, so Sony is keeping them afloat.
I've read an endless series of great reviews for MechAssualt: Gamespot 9.0, Editor's Choice, IGN 9.2, GamesDomain 4.5 out of 5, Top Game, etc. And visually it looks stunning. So forgive me, but based upon the reviews I'd buy MechAssault first.
Mario's shines were good, but it was just Mario64++. I think Zelda will be a great hit, though.
I think the whole franchise itself is getting a bit old and dated. They haven't really kept it fresh like Square did with FF. Though I was never really a big fan of Mario and Zelda to begin with. I actually think Pokemon is a much more valuable franchise at this point.
Unlike the GameGear (which had no decent games), and the Saturn (which was hard to develop for, leading to fewer games), the Dreamcast had a lot of great titles. However, Sony's FUD about the PS2 kept adoption lower than it otherwise would've been. Once the PS2 finally released, people started to buy it because it could do PS1 games and DVD movies, with the expectation that good PS2 games would also come out. My opinion is that no such good games ever did come out.
I would agree with everything but the last part. It's only in the past year that really good games for the PS2, like GTA3 and Kingdom Hearts, have been released. The launch titles basically sucked. The real reason the Dreamcast failed is because Sega didn't have the marketing money Sony had, and Sega was poorly run in general.
I'm still a proud Dreamcast owner. It remains *THE* platform for fighting games, which is primarily what I want a console for.
As for MS' situation, I think you're overstating it. It's still too soon to make such judgements. The PS2 is showing its age, and Microsoft has just started to lever their online service. Nintendo, unlike Microsoft and Sony, has a strong history of first-party games that rock (it's how they brought gaming back to life in the early 1980s, and the major flaw of Sony and MS -- no strong game branding exists on those platforms that is first-party).
FWIW, Square is effectively a first-party for Sony and they have the extremely lucrative Final Fantasy franchise. Sony also has GTA and Metal Gear Solid.
Microsoft has Mechassault, which is a continuation of the popular FASA "Mech" games.
Of course, none of these are a big as Mario or Zelda, but they're beginning to lose their shine a bit.
I'm not making this up. Next time you're watching TV, keep an eye out for game commercials. There are a few Nintendo-only commercials, fewer Xbox-only commercials, and the rest advertise support for every hardware platform under the sun except Xbox. You're more likely to see "Available for PS2, GCN and GBA" than "Available for PS2, GCN and Xbox."
I've seen tons of TV ads for Buffy and Mechassault, which are XBox exclusives. XBox is also a platform for many of the recent games I've seen ads for like BloodRayne, Defender, Lord of the Rings, and Medal of Honor: Frontline.
In fact, I'd say the "exclusive" TV advertising is about equal from what I can tell. I'd probably give the edge to PS2 for all of the GTA: Vice City and Kingdom Hearts ads I've seen.
Also I think Xbox live might make them more of a viable competitor, from what I've heard it's a better user experience compared to Nintendo and Sony's online offerings, albeit a pay service. I know several people who have bought Xboxes recently just for Xbox live. So who knows, it will be interesting to see where these console wars go.
The only significant advantage the XBox has over the PS2 in the marketplace is broadband gaming, now known as XBox Live!.
If XBox Live! is a failure, the XBox is doomed. MS knows this, so they've gone to great lengths to make XBox Live! as good an online service as possible, and I think the've largely succeeded. But is boradband gaming big enough to allow them to succeed in a GLOBAL marketplace? Doubtful.
PS2 has already won this round of the console wars. If XBox Live! takes off BIG, MS has a chance of winning round 2 against the PS3.
The only games I see advertized for Xbox are only for Xbox (which suggests poor third-party support), and they've now resorted to the marketing gimmick of giving away free games with the console.
The XBox has about 75% of the library of the PS2, not counting PS1 titles. The XBox has excellent third -party support, it's the GameCube that is suffering in this regard.
And virtually every console ever made has has game bundles. Includign such "failures" as the PS1 and NES.
Therefore, you don't see much GameCube warez or modchips floating about, compared to the PS2 and Xbox scene.
Using non-standard media pisses off deveoplers becasue it makes it harder to testbed. This reduces the number of third-party developers willing to produce games for the platform. Notice how the GC has fewer 3rd-party titles than the other two consoles? This is one of the big reasons (the main reason is bad blood from the N64). Nintendo did the same thing with the N64, and look what a success THAT was.
And if the GameCube didn't have two more popular competitors it would likely have a bigger modding community. The NES had plenty of mods, pirate carts, etc. and it was a proprietary format. Along the same lines, notice the active modding community for the GameBoy Advance.
In effect, the lack of a modding community for the GameCube is really just evidence of it's relative unpopularity. At least with customers sophisticated enough to recognize the benefits of modding (read: not young kids).
Many posters seem to be operating under the delusion that the MS/Sony/Nintendo lawsuit has been filed in the USA, even going so far as to cite the DMCA.
This is false, the lawsuit was filed in Hong Kong, a city-state notable for having some of the weakest copyright protections in the industrialized world. "Pirate" products of all sorts (everything from pirate PS1s to Gucci ripoffs) are sold openly in Hong Kong. And this isn't even a pirate product, just a modification to an existing product. I'm far from an expert on Hong Kong law, but I don't think HK has anything even remotely similar to the DMCA.
Of course, Microsoft etc. could easily win by bribing the PRC. This wouldn't help them against the 500 other "Lik-Sangs" that would leap in to fill the void.
Any system involving "bans" will inevitably lead to "false" bans. This was all played before with Blizzard and Blizzard.net over Diablo. You needed a login and CD-Key to get onto Blizzard.net, but the warez kids made up CD-Key generators. Keep trying until you got one that worked, nevermind that there is probably a legitimate owner that already has that key.
The same thing is going on with X-Box Live!. "Mod-chipped" XBoxes are being banned, but the various mods for XBoxes don't work in a consistant way, so the "net" has to be cast pretty far, resulting in "false" bans and lots of complaints to customer service. In practice, they HAVE to let anyone who complains access XBox Live! (there is legal and RP fallout for doing so). So in practice, all you have to do is mod your X-Box and then call customer service and complain that you were banned unfairly.
This is ignoring the fact that modchip groups have ALREADY figured out how the detection on XBox Live! works and modchips will arrive in the next 2-3 months that are compatible with XBox Live!.
It is certainly POSSIBLE to make cellphones for less that $50. Remember those guys making disposable cellphones. I think what the author was trying to say was that a device based on cellular technology would probably be more feasible.
I also question the feasiblity of "sharing" a handheld. It's really small, and really easy for someone to steal. I think a fixed, kiosk-style, system would be a better bet, but it would have tougher power requirements. Maybe solar panels (like they use for cell towers in remote areas)? Of course, this would drive up the cost.
I like this paper, which is a rundown on watermarking, DRM, and the "darknet" (basically, illegal content traffic).
My favorite part is this bit at the end:
"Additionally, the cost-per-bit, and the total size of the objects have a huge bearing on the competitiveness of today's darknets compared with legal trade. For example, today's peer-to-peer technologies provide excellent service quality for audio files, but users must be very determined or price-sensitive to download movies from a darknet, when the legal competition is a rental for a few dollars."
If you read between the lines, what they're basically saying is that MP3s are being pirated because CDs cost too much. Perhaps this is common sense, but it's nice to hear people from companies like Microsoft saying it.
Actually, this is nothing new. I heard exactly the same sort of talk at SDMI meetings among participants. The only companies talking "seriously" about watermarking and DRM working were mostly startups based solely on selling these new products. Basically, snake oil salesmen. And everybody knew it. Everyone was also generally disgusted by the Big 5's stalling and recitince. You might notice that SDMI went nowhere. The ones to blame for that were the Big 5, who were never seriously interested in making SDMI work.
Long ago, the Big 5 (correctly) decided that legal tactics were their best bet to stop "piracy". The only reason DRM is even being seriously discussed is because of legal failures (like the Diamond Multimedia Rio MP3 case). It is virtually certain that the MPAA will lose the SonicBlue ReplayTV case (btw, SonicBlue was formerly Diamond Multimedia).
Also, it increasinly looks like the only effective DRM strategies will involve changing the hardware and the hardware manufacturers will probably be extremely resistant to this (for many reasons). And they have money and weight in Washington. Lest anyone drag out DVD/CSS, that's a special case. The DVD format succeeded DESPITE CSS, not because of it. If you remember, some studios held off in favor of Divx, which was a total failure in the marketplace. Basically becasue Divx was simply a castrated from od DVD, a format already available.
In order for DRM to succeed in new hardware products, those products MUST offer very attractive new funtionality. DVD was vstly superior to the formats it replaced (VHS and LaserDisc) in many ways. That's why it suceeded.
Virtually none of the DRM proposals I've seen have been tied to new formats or devices with dramatically improved functionality. They will fail.
There's a point past which you have to stop feeling bad for people who make certain decisions. Microsoft has a well-established history of being terrible with security, of treating it as a P.R. problem that can be fixed with lies as opposed to an engineering problem that can be fixed with quality programming. This is not an obscure fact known only to Linux kernel hackers. This is the news we're getting now on CNN and other mainstream news sources.
I suspect, despite scattered reports on CNN, most people are competely unaware that Windows has security problems. Most don't even know what "computer security" even means. "Informed" users would probably say something like "passwords" and thier eyes would glaze over at the term "remote root exploit". I have recieved such responses from IT PROFESSIONALS in many companies.
And, yes, it would be different if this were Linux, or BSD, or even MacOS. All those operating systems come with companies or communities who take security seriously, and they respect their users enough to not foist insecure features on them. You can have the reasonable expectation that running any of those OSes let you worry about security a lot less than running a Windoze variant.
There are as many or even more reported exploits for Linux than their are for Windows. There are virtually none reported for MacOSX. Despite the contradiction, both are more secure than windows by virtue of being more popular. Back when Solaris was THE internet OS you would see TONS of exploits for Sun. Now, not so much. MacOS 9 and earlier had virtually no security whatsoever, yet despite this there were few viruses and trojans becasue it was an unpopular OS.
It is almost certain that if BSD or Linux were as popular as Windows virtually all of the virus/trojan/exploit issues would be there. Linux, BSD, etc. effectively have a high degree of "security through obscurity" because the OS itself is relatively obscure.
This is not to say that some OSes, like OpenBSD, aren't fundamentally more secure. They are. But thet achieve these high levels of security by limiting functionality. For example, the default installation of Red Hat Linux has an open Telnet server. Clearly this is a possible security risk. However, if you close it dow, no more Telnet. Security vs. functionality.
You posted what can only be considered an ADVERTISEMENT for the Segway. Bricklin is downright fawning. The only criticism AT ALL of the vehicle is in a very short scetion called "Did you find any limits or problems?" in which he goes to great lengths to downplay the problems.
He fails to mention the battery life at any point during the two articles. He fails to mention that it requires many hours of charging. He fails to mention the price ($5000). He compares it to bicycles, but only in the most unfavorable light. He does not really compare it to any sort of motorized scooters like this one, which is 1/3 of the price of a Segway.
This is pure advertising and PR.
And before you laugh and state this is ridiculous and impossible, read up on the Coral Castle and try to explain it. (Not to mention the pyramids, stonehenge, etc)
c hael_scallion.html>here</a>:
... The idea that Edward Leedskalnin levitated blocks is an urban legend..."
From an article found <a href=http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/gordon_mi
"The fact is that Edward Leedskalnin [the builder of Coral Castle] lived near a junk yard. There he was able to get scrap steel to build simple devices for lifting blocks.
Um, this may have to do with the fact that cars are driven in public more often than guns are shot in public. But, hey, if it doesn't support your argument, then common sense be damned, right?
Firearms are extermely common in the USA, over 300 million in circulation I'm told. From that I would bet that the number of firearm discharges (rounds fired) possibly outnumbers the amount of "driving incidents" every day. I think the numbers are at least comparable. Given that, the number of accidental firearms deaths is probably relatively low, given the number of firearm discharages.
Most fatal firearms accidents do not take place "in public". They usually happen in, or nearby, the home and are the result of mishandling a loaded firearm causing it to discharge.
Given the number of firearms in circulation (300 million) it is unlikely that even an immeadate total ban on firearms (remember that the statistics you see typically include police and military deaths) would solve the problem. OTOH, gun safety programs run by organizations like the NRA are PROVEN to reduce accidental firearm injury and death.
So if you really want to prevent accidental gun deaths, you should promote their safety programs. Particularly the Eddie Eagle program for children.