This study has been done 100 times and it always reaches the same conclusion. These prosecutions are just serving as a minor revenue stream and a means to legitimize a set of rules that benefit the record companies far more than the consumers or the artists they are purporting to protect.
yeah, it's kind of stupid. they seem to think that because the object they are printing can be reconfigured, they are printing across time and space. I guess I have a 4D camera tripod...who knew.
I think your premise is flawed. The tech part of SXSW is a relatively new, bolted on facet to the Music/Film festival. So Slashdot isn't pimping the festival, it's reporting about stuff going on at a tech conference which is exactly what they should be doing. You wouldn't ask this question about CES or E3, but this is becoming an equally relevant tech industry trade show.
Sorry, I know this is extremely late to this game, but I'm a little behind. There was a correction posted later stating that the study was from 1999, not recently. In 1999, I'd believe that the entire WWW was connected by 19 clicks. It was in an infantile state compared to today with "portals" like Yahoo! linking to tons of different content. GeoCities pages were all the rage and would often link back to the GeoCities homepage which was one of these magical portals. MySpace was humming along, and eBay was getting its legs. Nah, for 1999, I'd buy 19 clicks.
Sorry, i'm not trying to be dense or antagonistic. I understand and share your concern about the "micro" transactions adding up quickly to be a great deal more than the game is worth. I'm not even saying you're wrong for being suspicious of the methodology, I'm just saying that the heart of the matter is you feel like, in the end, you're going to pay more than the game is worth. You're not comfortable with the open-ended pricing and that's fine. You're not going to be conned in to spending more on a game than you're comfortable and that's laudable.
My point was simply that EA is trying to extract (or, to your perspective, extort) AAA console title prices from a mobile market for which $5 is, I think, a generous ceiling for game prices. Some people, however, might disagree with your valuation of this particular game and they might happily plunk down $20-30 to spare themselves the time to continue playing. They may feel the experience is rich enough to warrant the cost and that's not wrong either. But look, I don't play mobile games much, I've never bought "virtual goods" for real cash (I kind of laugh at people who buy virtual drinks while playing online poker), and I don't see the value in the concept. Others might. 'sall-im-sayin'
ah ha! so there's the problem...you just don't think the game is worth the amount you'd end up paying to play it for any practical length of time. This is no different than them charging $50 up front, in the end you only think the game is worth $5 and you aren't willing to pay what they're asking. It just sounds like your beef is more about how much you'd end up paying than the mechanism they use to get the money.
See, I read the PA comic today and thought: "Yeah, that's pretty shitty!" but if it's $1 to fix your car or wait for a few hours, that's not such a bad thing to me. It punishes the impatient, provides impetus to go do SOMEthing else for a couple of hours, adds a real-world consequence to poor play (either time or money), and besides, realistically, you're going to need to fix your car more when you first start playing than later when you've gotten good at the game so even if you do pay to fix, the cost should taper off dramatically.
I think this is way better than the subscription model; paying a non-trivial, fixed fee every month for the privilege of accessing a game no matter how much you actually play is a little stupid to me. And paying all the cost up front is a little less palatable than being bled slowly over the course of time.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think this particular instance is that bad in practice.
Even ignoring the shortsightedness of that statement, once you have multiple people using bandwidth, 35Mbs is suddenly not such a bottomless well even today. For instance, it's not uncommon for my wife to be streaming a movie upstairs while I'm streaming downstairs while I'm downloading a multi-gigabyte game. In a couple of years, i'll be adding my two daughters to the list of people who may be using bandwidth. I have 75Mbs, and I don't doubt I'm routinely using a solid fraction of that right now, let alone in a couple of years.
There's no words in all caps, no fantastical assertions, not a single typo, and it's 15 words long!! I'll give you some charity style points for using 100% improper punctuation, but really: 2/10. Hell, this rant about your rant was nearly 3x longer!! You should be ashamed.
Largely irrelevant, but the actual temp range according to their FAQ is:
What is the operating temperature range of A13-OLinuXino-WIFI?
The board works in the commercial temeprature range 0+70C
Sorry for the salty language, but at worst, this company should have had to put a "10+" and "Not for internal consumption" conspicuously on their packaging. This is a harmless, novelty toy; not a Jagged Metal O in your box of Krusty O's or a Bag'o'Glass (link for those of you too young to know that one). This is a toy which has dangerous consequences if ingested...
Slashdot Mirror
This study has been done 100 times and it always reaches the same conclusion. These prosecutions are just serving as a minor revenue stream and a means to legitimize a set of rules that benefit the record companies far more than the consumers or the artists they are purporting to protect.
it isn't. it's this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2886 which also died in committee. This bill is likely to do exactly the same, unfortunately.
ISTM that since about 1780 we've been running the USA as a cream-skimming operation for the rich
FTFY.
yeah, it's kind of stupid. they seem to think that because the object they are printing can be reconfigured, they are printing across time and space. I guess I have a 4D camera tripod...who knew.
Karma be damned
Right, then. Carry on with the actual discussion. Sorry for the diversion.
well, to answer your question: no, they're not actually sponsors
SXSW 2013 Sponsors
I think your premise is flawed. The tech part of SXSW is a relatively new, bolted on facet to the Music/Film festival. So Slashdot isn't pimping the festival, it's reporting about stuff going on at a tech conference which is exactly what they should be doing. You wouldn't ask this question about CES or E3, but this is becoming an equally relevant tech industry trade show.
I don't know...maybe it's just me, but teeth growing out of my kidney sounds like something gone horribly, horribly wrong...
Sorry, I know this is extremely late to this game, but I'm a little behind. There was a correction posted later stating that the study was from 1999, not recently. In 1999, I'd believe that the entire WWW was connected by 19 clicks. It was in an infantile state compared to today with "portals" like Yahoo! linking to tons of different content. GeoCities pages were all the rage and would often link back to the GeoCities homepage which was one of these magical portals. MySpace was humming along, and eBay was getting its legs. Nah, for 1999, I'd buy 19 clicks.
Sorry, i'm not trying to be dense or antagonistic. I understand and share your concern about the "micro" transactions adding up quickly to be a great deal more than the game is worth. I'm not even saying you're wrong for being suspicious of the methodology, I'm just saying that the heart of the matter is you feel like, in the end, you're going to pay more than the game is worth. You're not comfortable with the open-ended pricing and that's fine. You're not going to be conned in to spending more on a game than you're comfortable and that's laudable.
My point was simply that EA is trying to extract (or, to your perspective, extort) AAA console title prices from a mobile market for which $5 is, I think, a generous ceiling for game prices. Some people, however, might disagree with your valuation of this particular game and they might happily plunk down $20-30 to spare themselves the time to continue playing. They may feel the experience is rich enough to warrant the cost and that's not wrong either. But look, I don't play mobile games much, I've never bought "virtual goods" for real cash (I kind of laugh at people who buy virtual drinks while playing online poker), and I don't see the value in the concept. Others might. 'sall-im-sayin'
ah ha! so there's the problem...you just don't think the game is worth the amount you'd end up paying to play it for any practical length of time. This is no different than them charging $50 up front, in the end you only think the game is worth $5 and you aren't willing to pay what they're asking. It just sounds like your beef is more about how much you'd end up paying than the mechanism they use to get the money.
See, I read the PA comic today and thought: "Yeah, that's pretty shitty!" but if it's $1 to fix your car or wait for a few hours, that's not such a bad thing to me. It punishes the impatient, provides impetus to go do SOMEthing else for a couple of hours, adds a real-world consequence to poor play (either time or money), and besides, realistically, you're going to need to fix your car more when you first start playing than later when you've gotten good at the game so even if you do pay to fix, the cost should taper off dramatically.
I think this is way better than the subscription model; paying a non-trivial, fixed fee every month for the privilege of accessing a game no matter how much you actually play is a little stupid to me. And paying all the cost up front is a little less palatable than being bled slowly over the course of time.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think this particular instance is that bad in practice.
35mb its faster than any consumer will ever need
Even ignoring the shortsightedness of that statement, once you have multiple people using bandwidth, 35Mbs is suddenly not such a bottomless well even today. For instance, it's not uncommon for my wife to be streaming a movie upstairs while I'm streaming downstairs while I'm downloading a multi-gigabyte game. In a couple of years, i'll be adding my two daughters to the list of people who may be using bandwidth. I have 75Mbs, and I don't doubt I'm routinely using a solid fraction of that right now, let alone in a couple of years.
the Visual Studio replace tool
I deal with the goddamn customers!
There's no words in all caps, no fantastical assertions, not a single typo, and it's 15 words long!! I'll give you some charity style points for using 100% improper punctuation, but really: 2/10. Hell, this rant about your rant was nearly 3x longer!! You should be ashamed.
but that's enough to make me switch to Comcast if they actually follow through with this.
Riiight....cuz no one was every bullied at a private school...
right...because the first thing the FBI does with data it gets is put it out there for the general public to see.
Largely irrelevant, but the actual temp range according to their FAQ is:
What is the operating temperature range of A13-OLinuXino-WIFI?
The board works in the commercial temeprature range 0+70C
Sorry for the salty language, but at worst, this company should have had to put a "10+" and "Not for internal consumption" conspicuously on their packaging. This is a harmless, novelty toy; not a Jagged Metal O in your box of Krusty O's or a Bag'o'Glass (link for those of you too young to know that one). This is a toy which has dangerous consequences if ingested...
I'm l lookin' at you Smith and Wesson!
actually deliver on the "change" promise ... One can hope.
i see what you did there...
agreed on all three counts
I've boiled down the 32 comments (so far) to 2:
"Drink more ovaltine! (ha ha)" and the like
Undecoded = unnecessary double negative.
Glad to save you some time, Dear Reader.