if VIA and Transmeta cannot get sales before the giant Intel crushes them
That's a verrrrry big if.
Transmeta is going after a market that Intel doesn't really seem to care about. Examine the trend in power consumption from the Pentium through the P4. Intel doesn't seem to be showing much of a general interest in lowering power consumption.
It would take a lot for Intel to start producing ultra-low-power chips. I really would be surprised if they decided to seriously consider trying to compete in that market unless they saw somebody else making a significant profit first.
This all leads to the stupidity of the statement which I had quoted earlier -- "Let's hope they can capitalize on this before Intel starts filling the same niche." Not only is it unlikely that Intel will attempt to beat them to the ultra-low-power ~1GHz punch, but to suggest that we should hope that Intel doesn't end up "filling the same niche" is suggesting that we should hope that the most widely known chip manufacturer doesn't produce cool, efficient processors.
You suggest that without competition, prices will be higher. If Intel doesn't attempt to target the same markets as Transmeta, doesn't that mean that those markets bear less competition?
Let's hope they can capitalize on this before Intel starts filling the same niche.
That's got to be in the running for the stupidest thing posted to the homepage, EVER.
Why would anyone hope that Intel doesn't produce low-power chips at reasonable clock speeds? Cooling, efficiency, product life (less overheating and temperature cycling can't be a bad thing)... and this guy hopes Intel doesn't catch up?
Transmeta hired Linus at one point. That's no reason to hope that Intel doesn't design a really low-power, high-performance chip that'll reduce power consumption of both desktop and mobile PCs while removing the need to have tons of (loud!) case fans.
I agree with category 4 being bull -- as I implied, and you stated, textbook code is usually about as far from secure as you can get.
And I don't have tape around my glasses, nor do I have a pocket protector. And I definitely agree that just because some guy wrote a book doesn't mean he's not a jackass.
At the least, the review basically sucked. I'd probably have gotten more information from a link directly to Amazon.
I disagree. On a somewhat more technical leve, I read his four categories as something like this:
Those who use gets(), and call functions like open() without checking the return value, knowing it could bite them in the ass but thinking that nobody will notice,
Those who get some of the obvious stuff (like not using gets()), but often miss other things which should be known, and often opt for less elegant techniques because they haven't read/written enough code to know what better techniques are out there.
Those who write good code most of the time, but who don't really understand what security entails other than checking return values and paying attention to string management,
Those who really understand the language, the machine architecture, software engineering, and the application area, and who can write textbook code on a regular basis
I think it's a reasonable way to generalize. Those in category #1 are really amateurs, and after having been smacked in the face by their mistakes will move on to category #2, or will quit altogether.
I've seen coders develop, and there are many in category #2, who don't realize that sometimes a
for
is more elegant than a
while
, or duplicate code in both branches of a conditional. It's not major stuff, but those people would do better to parse and create more code before worrying about reading a book written for the technically-minded.
I'm in category #3, myself. I like to use clever techniques that simplify both the execution and the appearance of code, but all of the textbook code I've seen (including CS textbooks) ignores security in order to make the concepts they discuss more clear. Many texts say something like "Here's an example. It's not secure or robust, but it's clean and easy to understand."
However, few texts out there explain how to move from category #3 to category #4 -- how to write secure code which retains elegance and cleanliness.
I'm unclear here -- are you just fond of complaining, or do you have a legitimate suggestion for the author to integrate into possible future editions?
As I stated, I did bother to read the article, and you seem to agree that the article didn't offer anything resembling a practical solution.
As the article was posted with the title, "How to Kill Spam Without the State", I was pointing out to potential readers that the article did not deliver what was promised in the so-called summary -- namely, a way to prevent spam without resorting to legislation.
This isn't whining, this is pointing out that the description of the article was misleading, and that if you were expecting something akin to Paul Graham's thoughtful submissions, you'd likely be disappointed.
For those who haven't read it (and I hope you haven't -- don't waste your own time), basically it says this:
End-users should take responsibility for spam, and the best way to prevent spam is to stop putting email addresses in mailto: links on web pages and in unmunged form in posts to Usenet.
However, it really doesn't explain how the author thinks that people can do something to take responsibility for receiving unsolicited (!) email.
The article fails to mention dictionary attacks and worms, both of which have the potential to find millions of addresses which aren't listed on any web page or in any newsgroup.
I'd be truly surprised if there weren't a worm in the works which would not only act as a mail relay, but which would take care to forward mail to every address listed in a person's address book. Rather than worry about maintaining lists of email addresses, spammers could feed their message to the network of worms (possibly through IRC, or maybe even an instant messaging protocol), and the network would feed messages to every address listed on an infected user's hard drive, and probably to several variants of the addresses as well.
What the article fails to address is this: how can the person who never publishes their email address anywhere take responsibility for spam in the face of dictionary attacks, and when they have no control over friends putting the person's address in their address books?
The article says that when fighting spam, you shouldn't look to the politicians, because they have not the technical knowledge to make legislation stick.
In response to that, I suggest that you not look to the article for spam-fighting advice, because the author seems not to have the technical knowledge to actually develop a solution, or even offer suggestions beyond never publishing unmunged headers.
To those of you who read the article, I feel your pain. You will never get those wasted moments back. But did anyone else cringe when he suggested using graphics to display email addresses in Usenet postings?
My thought is that people advocating posting graphics to Usenet with every post probably don't have a spam solution either. In fact, they're suggesting placing a higher load on NNTP servers, in effect doing the same thing to news servers as spammers do to mail servers: clog them with extra, unneeded garbage, reducing their overall capacity with respect to legitimate communication.
I wonder what they believe will protect their business from poaching of these ideas?
Perhaps the fact that it's taken many very smart people a good amount of time to implement and tune the original design, even after having come up with the basic layout?
Go take a look at the ReiserFS Future Vision page -- you'll see some more interesting discussion of filesystem design, and overall direction. There are a few solid developers working full-time on the concepts discussed in the Reiser docs, and they still have enough work to keep them busy for years to come.
Google releasing information regarding the structure of their systems is a bit like John Carmack discussing the structure of his graphics engines: there's a hell of a distance between a conceptual description and a fine-tuned, tested, working implementation.
Given Google's history, I'd also imagine that they're on the lookout for up-and-coming young researchers. As such, if some grad student takes their work and extends it, they can certainly benefit.
Magnatune wanted me to type my credit card number on a NON-SSL page
Who gives a shit whether the form is served to the browser via SSL?
It's the target of the form that matters, not the page that displays it.
Sure, having the form target an SSL-hosted page is generally not a bad idea, but that's not what you complained about. You're not entirely barking up the wrong tree, but you're definitely off by a branch or two.
sell support for the free software and hardware to run it
This fits wonderfully with IBM's traditional modus operandi.
They tried to co-author an OS with Microsoft; however, Microsoft's goals ran against IBM's, and it turned sour. Being a software company, MS had (and has) a significant interest in controlling the software involved.
It seems to me that IBM hasn't traditionally been interested in selling programs, but in providing top-notch business solutions. Remember, IBM stands for International Business Machines. IBM embraced OSS because it allows them to do what no traditional software vendor (including SCO, MS, et. al) can allow them to do -- provide business solutions with a minimum of outside interference. OSS means that IBM can do whatever necessary to allow software to fit a customer's needs, and to ensure that it'll run on whatever hardware they throw at it, even to the extent of porting the code.
OSS means that IBM isn't tied to a vendor, or architecture. IBM isn't afraid of a bunch of people copying their software -- in fact, they're probably pretty happy that some of those using the same programs happen to also work on improving them.
Open standards work for IBM. Code which can be freely modified works for IBM. OSS works for IBM because it removes the worries of vendor lock-in, and IBM will survive because in the end they do something which SCO does not:
IBM delivers a product for which many businesses will gladly pay, and from which they will benefit, and for which they would probably pay again in the future.
Even if that is the case, until proof of such violation is presented (and, more importantly, verified in a court of law), I find it highly unlikely that SCO could win a suit against end-users at all.
Until copyright violation is proven in a court of law, I see no reason that anyone needs indemnification against this garbage.
Do you have any links to resources explaining the situations during which end-users might be responsible for copyright violation?
It has been my understanding that copyright restricted the ability to copy a work, not the ability to make use of it.
Well, I read the article, and have read many other SCO-related articles.
The major question I've yet to see answered regarding indemnification is this:
Why would customers even need indemnification against SCO? What action could SCO bring against someone using (but NOT distributing) Linux, even supposing the alleged code infringement did happen in the first place?
In other words, indemnification against what? As I understand it, if a Linux user isn't distributing software, they can't be violating anyone's copyrights with respect to that program.
I see three possibilities:
I'm missing something relevent about copyright law, and a copyright holder can sue someone who isn't distributing their copyrighted work.
There's something other than copyright involved which would allow SCO to attempt to sue end-users who are not redistributing Linux.
SCO (and HP, et. al) are full of crap regarding the idea of customers needing indemnification.
Linux is the soceity that tends to bash users for being too stupid to do anything... The whole "lets license users" type argument for surfing is a complete tech-elitest typical bs approach.
To some extent, possibly, although I've often seen Slashdotters stand up with comments such as, "What about people in China (et. al) using the Internet for purposes which aren't condoned locally? The Internet can be a way to communicate with the world despite the wishes of the local governance."
Given this viewpoint, many Slashdotters would realize (and vocalize about) the idea that requiring licensing from the locally ruling bodies could restrict speech in those localities in terrible ways.
It seems to me that Slashdotters often seem to hold freedom over security.
Of course you're correct, IF we assume transportation, storage and marketing all cost zero. AND we assume no units will ever break-down, nobody will ever need support, and the product never requires any kind of bugfix (software or hardware) in its entire lifetime... So, if all that is correct, then so are you...
Apply that to the auto industry. Cars are manufactured at a central location, and are delivered via a combination of truck and rail to dealerships. Dealerships store these vehicles on their lots, which they either rent or own and pay annual property taxes for. Marketing costs money, as well -- billboards, newspaper and magazine ads, and advertisements on television and radio aren't generally free.
Cars often "break-down", and car manufacturers offer warranties. People often need support -- many dealerships offer perks such as free lifetime oil changes, tire rotation, and other scheduled maintenance. Often, cars require bugfixes (they're called "recalls" in the auto industry).
So, every single point that you claimed must be true in order for a particular product to be profitable fails to hold true in the auto industry, one in which established companies have managed to survive for years.
In fact, the games which you seem to think are oh-so-profitable cost money to transport, store, advertise, and market. Games may fail and be replaced by manufacturers, may require support, and may include bugs.
In fact, I invite you to describe a single manufactured good for the conditions you described hold true: 100% cost-free transportation, storage, and marketing, and a 0% failure and defect rate. You said that ALL of those conditions must be met in order for consoles to be profitable, so I invite you to either describe products which fit your own description, or to explain why console gaming systems differ from every other manufactured good.
All games consoles, including handhelds are sold at a loss
I've got to call bullshit on this one.
Do you honestly believe that it pure production for each PS2 made costs in excess of $200?
Here's one place where the "loss" rumor comes from:
Say $1 million goes towards product development for a hot new game system. Now, say the product costs $50 to manufacture, and the manufacturer charges $250 for the system.
Vendors can charge whatever they want for it, because that doesn't affect the manufacturer -- more on this in a bit.
Okay, so for the first machine sold, the OEM has laid out $1,000,000 in R&D, $50 in production, and has been given $250 for the actual unit. That $1 million is referred to as "fixed cost" -- they've done the research, and the number of units sold doesn't change the fact that they've spent a million dollars on it. So, after the sale of the first unit, the OEM has spend $1,000,050 between R&D and production, and received $250 for the unit. They're now $999,800 further behind than they'd have been had they simply never developed a new product in the first place.
If they never sell another unit, then it cost them $999,800 to ship that unit. Of course, the second unit results in a net gain of another $200 for them, so shipping two units cost them $999,600. This is true until the 5000th unit, when they have broken even -- the fixed production costs (R&D in this simply scenario, in real life it would include rent, bills, etc. as well) are exactly cancelled out by the profit from sales.
The OEM benefits from each sale, since they've already laid out the money towards product development. Even if they're in the red on paper, each sale gets them further towards profit.
Now, I promised to mention vendors. Many stores, grocery, electronic, or otherwise, will advertise a product at a price cheaper than what it cost them to purchase from the OEM. If carrots cost me $0.29/can, and I sell them at 4 for $1, I am losing $0.04 on the sale of each can. However, I wouldn't do this because I'm a poor businessman. I would do this because I know that few people will enter a grocery store and buy nothing but canned carrots, and that I will likely profit enough from the sale of other items that I can take the four-cent loss.
It's called a "loss leader", and electronics stores very well may sell a console below what it cost them to purchase from the manufacturer, therefore losing money on the sale of that item. However, it is assumed that the buyer will also purchase games while in the store, and profit is higher on the games.
Of course, the aforementions paragraph has nothing to do with the OEM making or losing money, so should not cause rumors that Sony loses money on the PS2 simply because EB or Best Buy might sell it below what they paid Sony for it.
Even worse, popular media never brings up the idea that copyright protection extending 70 years past the creator's death just might be a little more than needed to fulfill the original purpose of copyright -- encouraging creators to share their work.
I'd love to see Tom Brokaw discussing the idea that copyright in this country was permitted only because it was feared that the public domain might never benefit from somebody's efforts.
That's the story you never see in popular media. People assume that because something is illegal, it should not be legal. I'd love to see a large consumer group form with the goal of copyright reform -- that would be an organization to which I'd gladly donate money which is currently not being spent on overpriced CDs, and I'd encourage others to do the same.
I'd like to see a website provide a mechanism for meeting and discussing issues with an easy method of donation. Hell, it'd even be a great way for Slashdot to convince more people to join -- perhaps they should donate 50% of membership fees to one or more OSS or consumer-advocacy group which you could select from a list. It'd be a great way to encourage membership ("Pay for Slashdot, support a worthy cause!"), and it would provide exposure to groups which could do great things with a little more funding.
You can believe this theory or not, but it is an awfully appealing alternative to raising taxes in order to compensate victims.
I can't say I agree with this logic. I believe that the penal system's role should not be to lash out at whomever makes an easy target, but to attempt to make sure that those who commit wrongs do not repeat such behaviour.
I believe that slapping the makers of GTA with a multimillion-dollar judgement is wrong because it has negative effects upon society. Take2 didn't commit the violent acts, and passing the onus of retribution on to them simply shows that despite admitting wrongdoing, the boys won't have to be held entirely responsible for their actions.
The legal system isn't there to compensate victims, it's there to make sure that those who commit wrongs don't repeat them. Forcing Take2 to pay millions will not affect those who might take to the streets with firearms in the future, and it implies that the blame lies not on the shoulders of those who fired shots, but on an "evil" game company.
This is further bad because it leads people to believe that all companies are inherently bad. If a board of directors already thinks that whatever they do will be seen as evil in the public eye, they will take less care not to act immorally for fear of tainting a company's reputation. Thus, instead of people saying, "That company acted immorally!", we have, "Well, yeah, corporations are evil. What else would you expect?"
I'll take the higher taxes. I'd be glad to contribute 5% of my pre-tax income to ensure that blame falls in the lap of those responsible for stupid actions, and that the government will be able to afford to help victims of violence.
Sorry if I sound cynical, I do truly appreciate your response -- it's one of the most interesting things I've read in a good while, and explains much of the seemingly stupid lawsuits seen almost daily.
True, but my point is that teenagers are able to understand that their actions have consequences. Failure to hold kids responsible for their actions leads to teenagers who don't think about consequences before acting.
Someone willing to go out and shoot people at random probably also makes other choices which are bad for society.
I'm not implying that the U.S. "correctional" system's crude methods are the best available, but someone who doesn't think about the effects of their actions before acting should be taken aside and "parented".
Claiming that GTA leads people to believe that random killing is normal is similar to claiming that watching Wheel of Fortune will lead people to expect that they can earn thousands of dollars as a result of doing crossword puzzles.
Slashdot Mirror
Transmeta is going after a market that Intel doesn't really seem to care about. Examine the trend in power consumption from the Pentium through the P4. Intel doesn't seem to be showing much of a general interest in lowering power consumption.
It would take a lot for Intel to start producing ultra-low-power chips. I really would be surprised if they decided to seriously consider trying to compete in that market unless they saw somebody else making a significant profit first.
This all leads to the stupidity of the statement which I had quoted earlier -- "Let's hope they can capitalize on this before Intel starts filling the same niche." Not only is it unlikely that Intel will attempt to beat them to the ultra-low-power ~1GHz punch, but to suggest that we should hope that Intel doesn't end up "filling the same niche" is suggesting that we should hope that the most widely known chip manufacturer doesn't produce cool, efficient processors.
You suggest that without competition, prices will be higher. If Intel doesn't attempt to target the same markets as Transmeta, doesn't that mean that those markets bear less competition?
Why would anyone hope that Intel doesn't produce low-power chips at reasonable clock speeds? Cooling, efficiency, product life (less overheating and temperature cycling can't be a bad thing)... and this guy hopes Intel doesn't catch up?
Transmeta hired Linus at one point. That's no reason to hope that Intel doesn't design a really low-power, high-performance chip that'll reduce power consumption of both desktop and mobile PCs while removing the need to have tons of (loud!) case fans.
Hah!
;)
Nice response
I agree with category 4 being bull -- as I implied, and you stated, textbook code is usually about as far from secure as you can get.
And I don't have tape around my glasses, nor do I have a pocket protector. And I definitely agree that just because some guy wrote a book doesn't mean he's not a jackass.
At the least, the review basically sucked. I'd probably have gotten more information from a link directly to Amazon.
I think it's a reasonable way to generalize. Those in category #1 are really amateurs, and after having been smacked in the face by their mistakes will move on to category #2, or will quit altogether.
I've seen coders develop, and there are many in category #2, who don't realize that sometimes a is more elegant than a , or duplicate code in both branches of a conditional. It's not major stuff, but those people would do better to parse and create more code before worrying about reading a book written for the technically-minded.
I'm in category #3, myself. I like to use clever techniques that simplify both the execution and the appearance of code, but all of the textbook code I've seen (including CS textbooks) ignores security in order to make the concepts they discuss more clear. Many texts say something like "Here's an example. It's not secure or robust, but it's clean and easy to understand."
However, few texts out there explain how to move from category #3 to category #4 -- how to write secure code which retains elegance and cleanliness.
I'm unclear here -- are you just fond of complaining, or do you have a legitimate suggestion for the author to integrate into possible future editions?
As I stated, I did bother to read the article, and you seem to agree that the article didn't offer anything resembling a practical solution.
As the article was posted with the title, "How to Kill Spam Without the State", I was pointing out to potential readers that the article did not deliver what was promised in the so-called summary -- namely, a way to prevent spam without resorting to legislation.
This isn't whining, this is pointing out that the description of the article was misleading, and that if you were expecting something akin to Paul Graham's thoughtful submissions, you'd likely be disappointed.
This article was a waste of my time to read.
For those who haven't read it (and I hope you haven't -- don't waste your own time), basically it says this:
End-users should take responsibility for spam, and the best way to prevent spam is to stop putting email addresses in mailto: links on web pages and in unmunged form in posts to Usenet.
However, it really doesn't explain how the author thinks that people can do something to take responsibility for receiving unsolicited (!) email.
The article fails to mention dictionary attacks and worms, both of which have the potential to find millions of addresses which aren't listed on any web page or in any newsgroup.
I'd be truly surprised if there weren't a worm in the works which would not only act as a mail relay, but which would take care to forward mail to every address listed in a person's address book. Rather than worry about maintaining lists of email addresses, spammers could feed their message to the network of worms (possibly through IRC, or maybe even an instant messaging protocol), and the network would feed messages to every address listed on an infected user's hard drive, and probably to several variants of the addresses as well.
What the article fails to address is this: how can the person who never publishes their email address anywhere take responsibility for spam in the face of dictionary attacks, and when they have no control over friends putting the person's address in their address books?
The article says that when fighting spam, you shouldn't look to the politicians, because they have not the technical knowledge to make legislation stick.
In response to that, I suggest that you not look to the article for spam-fighting advice, because the author seems not to have the technical knowledge to actually develop a solution, or even offer suggestions beyond never publishing unmunged headers.
To those of you who read the article, I feel your pain. You will never get those wasted moments back. But did anyone else cringe when he suggested using graphics to display email addresses in Usenet postings?
My thought is that people advocating posting graphics to Usenet with every post probably don't have a spam solution either. In fact, they're suggesting placing a higher load on NNTP servers, in effect doing the same thing to news servers as spammers do to mail servers: clog them with extra, unneeded garbage, reducing their overall capacity with respect to legitimate communication.
Oh, and have a nice day, everyone!
Whatever changes are made to DRM, just remember what the consumers' position will be when DRM is commonplace:
Bent over, taking it in the poop chute.
What we really need is a leaked copy of the Duke Nukem Forever source code.
;)
Some game data wouldn't hurt, either
I wonder what they believe will protect their business from poaching of these ideas?
Perhaps the fact that it's taken many very smart people a good amount of time to implement and tune the original design, even after having come up with the basic layout?
Go take a look at the ReiserFS Future Vision page -- you'll see some more interesting discussion of filesystem design, and overall direction. There are a few solid developers working full-time on the concepts discussed in the Reiser docs, and they still have enough work to keep them busy for years to come.
Google releasing information regarding the structure of their systems is a bit like John Carmack discussing the structure of his graphics engines: there's a hell of a distance between a conceptual description and a fine-tuned, tested, working implementation.
Given Google's history, I'd also imagine that they're on the lookout for up-and-coming young researchers. As such, if some grad student takes their work and extends it, they can certainly benefit.
It's the target of the form that matters, not the page that displays it.
Sure, having the form target an SSL-hosted page is generally not a bad idea, but that's not what you complained about. You're not entirely barking up the wrong tree, but you're definitely off by a branch or two.
They tried to co-author an OS with Microsoft; however, Microsoft's goals ran against IBM's, and it turned sour. Being a software company, MS had (and has) a significant interest in controlling the software involved.
It seems to me that IBM hasn't traditionally been interested in selling programs, but in providing top-notch business solutions. Remember, IBM stands for International Business Machines. IBM embraced OSS because it allows them to do what no traditional software vendor (including SCO, MS, et. al) can allow them to do -- provide business solutions with a minimum of outside interference. OSS means that IBM can do whatever necessary to allow software to fit a customer's needs, and to ensure that it'll run on whatever hardware they throw at it, even to the extent of porting the code.
OSS means that IBM isn't tied to a vendor, or architecture. IBM isn't afraid of a bunch of people copying their software -- in fact, they're probably pretty happy that some of those using the same programs happen to also work on improving them.
Open standards work for IBM. Code which can be freely modified works for IBM. OSS works for IBM because it removes the worries of vendor lock-in, and IBM will survive because in the end they do something which SCO does not:
IBM delivers a product for which many businesses will gladly pay, and from which they will benefit, and for which they would probably pay again in the future.
Even if that is the case, until proof of such violation is presented (and, more importantly, verified in a court of law), I find it highly unlikely that SCO could win a suit against end-users at all.
Until copyright violation is proven in a court of law, I see no reason that anyone needs indemnification against this garbage.
Do you have any links to resources explaining the situations during which end-users might be responsible for copyright violation?
It has been my understanding that copyright restricted the ability to copy a work, not the ability to make use of it.
The major question I've yet to see answered regarding indemnification is this:
Why would customers even need indemnification against SCO? What action could SCO bring against someone using (but NOT distributing) Linux, even supposing the alleged code infringement did happen in the first place?
In other words, indemnification against what? As I understand it, if a Linux user isn't distributing software, they can't be violating anyone's copyrights with respect to that program.
I see three possibilities:
Anyone care to clarify?
I don't use Mandrake, but I have to respect any company that knows enough to number points in a press release starting with zero.
True, but try paying a hooker to give you a BJ while riding your Z1000.
The 959, on the other hand...
Well?
Should I assume that you can't provide any such examples?
Or perhaps you're busy, revolutionizing the auto industry, removing all transportation, repair, maintenance, storage, and marketing costs?
Given this viewpoint, many Slashdotters would realize (and vocalize about) the idea that requiring licensing from the locally ruling bodies could restrict speech in those localities in terrible ways.
It seems to me that Slashdotters often seem to hold freedom over security.
Cars often "break-down", and car manufacturers offer warranties. People often need support -- many dealerships offer perks such as free lifetime oil changes, tire rotation, and other scheduled maintenance. Often, cars require bugfixes (they're called "recalls" in the auto industry).
So, every single point that you claimed must be true in order for a particular product to be profitable fails to hold true in the auto industry, one in which established companies have managed to survive for years.
In fact, the games which you seem to think are oh-so-profitable cost money to transport, store, advertise, and market. Games may fail and be replaced by manufacturers, may require support, and may include bugs.
In fact, I invite you to describe a single manufactured good for the conditions you described hold true: 100% cost-free transportation, storage, and marketing, and a 0% failure and defect rate. You said that ALL of those conditions must be met in order for consoles to be profitable, so I invite you to either describe products which fit your own description, or to explain why console gaming systems differ from every other manufactured good.
Do you honestly believe that it pure production for each PS2 made costs in excess of $200?
Here's one place where the "loss" rumor comes from:
Say $1 million goes towards product development for a hot new game system. Now, say the product costs $50 to manufacture, and the manufacturer charges $250 for the system.
Vendors can charge whatever they want for it, because that doesn't affect the manufacturer -- more on this in a bit.
Okay, so for the first machine sold, the OEM has laid out $1,000,000 in R&D, $50 in production, and has been given $250 for the actual unit. That $1 million is referred to as "fixed cost" -- they've done the research, and the number of units sold doesn't change the fact that they've spent a million dollars on it. So, after the sale of the first unit, the OEM has spend $1,000,050 between R&D and production, and received $250 for the unit. They're now $999,800 further behind than they'd have been had they simply never developed a new product in the first place.
If they never sell another unit, then it cost them $999,800 to ship that unit. Of course, the second unit results in a net gain of another $200 for them, so shipping two units cost them $999,600. This is true until the 5000th unit, when they have broken even -- the fixed production costs (R&D in this simply scenario, in real life it would include rent, bills, etc. as well) are exactly cancelled out by the profit from sales.
The OEM benefits from each sale, since they've already laid out the money towards product development. Even if they're in the red on paper, each sale gets them further towards profit.
Now, I promised to mention vendors. Many stores, grocery, electronic, or otherwise, will advertise a product at a price cheaper than what it cost them to purchase from the OEM. If carrots cost me $0.29/can, and I sell them at 4 for $1, I am losing $0.04 on the sale of each can. However, I wouldn't do this because I'm a poor businessman. I would do this because I know that few people will enter a grocery store and buy nothing but canned carrots, and that I will likely profit enough from the sale of other items that I can take the four-cent loss.
It's called a "loss leader", and electronics stores very well may sell a console below what it cost them to purchase from the manufacturer, therefore losing money on the sale of that item. However, it is assumed that the buyer will also purchase games while in the store, and profit is higher on the games.
Of course, the aforementions paragraph has nothing to do with the OEM making or losing money, so should not cause rumors that Sony loses money on the PS2 simply because EB or Best Buy might sell it below what they paid Sony for it.
Can't we try the RIAA under statutory rape laws?
They're tried to rape a 12-year-old girl, but opted to rape her mother instead...
Even worse, popular media never brings up the idea that copyright protection extending 70 years past the creator's death just might be a little more than needed to fulfill the original purpose of copyright -- encouraging creators to share their work.
I'd love to see Tom Brokaw discussing the idea that copyright in this country was permitted only because it was feared that the public domain might never benefit from somebody's efforts.
That's the story you never see in popular media. People assume that because something is illegal, it should not be legal. I'd love to see a large consumer group form with the goal of copyright reform -- that would be an organization to which I'd gladly donate money which is currently not being spent on overpriced CDs, and I'd encourage others to do the same.
I'd like to see a website provide a mechanism for meeting and discussing issues with an easy method of donation. Hell, it'd even be a great way for Slashdot to convince more people to join -- perhaps they should donate 50% of membership fees to one or more OSS or consumer-advocacy group which you could select from a list. It'd be a great way to encourage membership ("Pay for Slashdot, support a worthy cause!"), and it would provide exposure to groups which could do great things with a little more funding.
Mmmkay, time for bed.
I can't say I agree with this logic. I believe that the penal system's role should not be to lash out at whomever makes an easy target, but to attempt to make sure that those who commit wrongs do not repeat such behaviour.
I believe that slapping the makers of GTA with a multimillion-dollar judgement is wrong because it has negative effects upon society. Take2 didn't commit the violent acts, and passing the onus of retribution on to them simply shows that despite admitting wrongdoing, the boys won't have to be held entirely responsible for their actions.
The legal system isn't there to compensate victims, it's there to make sure that those who commit wrongs don't repeat them. Forcing Take2 to pay millions will not affect those who might take to the streets with firearms in the future, and it implies that the blame lies not on the shoulders of those who fired shots, but on an "evil" game company.
This is further bad because it leads people to believe that all companies are inherently bad. If a board of directors already thinks that whatever they do will be seen as evil in the public eye, they will take less care not to act immorally for fear of tainting a company's reputation. Thus, instead of people saying, "That company acted immorally!", we have, "Well, yeah, corporations are evil. What else would you expect?"
I'll take the higher taxes. I'd be glad to contribute 5% of my pre-tax income to ensure that blame falls in the lap of those responsible for stupid actions, and that the government will be able to afford to help victims of violence.
Sorry if I sound cynical, I do truly appreciate your response -- it's one of the most interesting things I've read in a good while, and explains much of the seemingly stupid lawsuits seen almost daily.
Do you ever punish your children for their actions?
If so, why? If you believe that they cannot determine what they should and should not be doing, then punishing them is pointless.
True, but my point is that teenagers are able to understand that their actions have consequences. Failure to hold kids responsible for their actions leads to teenagers who don't think about consequences before acting.
Someone willing to go out and shoot people at random probably also makes other choices which are bad for society.
I'm not implying that the U.S. "correctional" system's crude methods are the best available, but someone who doesn't think about the effects of their actions before acting should be taken aside and "parented".
Claiming that GTA leads people to believe that random killing is normal is similar to claiming that watching Wheel of Fortune will lead people to expect that they can earn thousands of dollars as a result of doing crossword puzzles.
Stupid teens grow up to be stupid people. Adults just have more to lose, so they're generally more afraid to take chances.