No I didn't. You did. It's your example. Come up with a non-deceptive example.
May I suggest a "surprise gift" example? Perhaps a business example: "The smith's son wants to build an inn, but didn't want others to know so he could buy land for less money". There are lots of non-deceptive examples.
---
It doesn't change the fact that privacy as we know it now is not the normal state of being. It's a recent cultural phenomenon probably based on the declining perceived trustworthiness of the people we interact with. Privacy is a personal defensiveness based on mistrust. Mistrust stems from being surrounded by and interacting with unfamiliar people.
Long ago, a kid would grow up and mostly interact with family, lifelong friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. These people shared a common heritage and culture and were under some kind of local authority, so there was a much better risk/reward ratio for trust. Also, it's quite hard to keep secrets from people when you sleep in the same room with them every night for 20 years. So keeping secrets was hard and there was little benefit.
Secrets were a special case -- an exceptional thing. Ordinary folks had few secrets. Many folks had none. In contrast, modern privacy advocates suggest that secrecy is the norm and that everyone owes it to you to be 100% secretive about you and not even try to find out any info.
Also, notice that the secret in your example is used to lie and deceive people. You might want to come up with a better example.
It not really all that secret either. Local folks would know. Only outsiders wouldn't know.
None of this supports the article's point that privacy (as we know it now) is natural or a biological imperative.
Seriously, why are you defending Apple so vehemently?
I'm not defending them at all. You're attacking them.
When there are accusations, it's only fair if the people being accused are actually guilty of the things they're being accused of.
If you want to accuse Apple of doing something wrong, you should make the case that they did it and why it's wrong. There should be facts. There should be an explanation of why one action is wrong when other seemingly similar actions are not wrong. Arguments need a sound foundation if you want thinking people to agree with you. If your accusations can't hold up to the simplest scrutiny, then how can they be convincing?
I think there are far too many attacks on people. A lot of you folks out there must be quite unhappy to continually find enemies you want to attack all the time.
Games are not about innovation. Games are about FUN.
If you have a fun game that people have already played, and you add a minor tweak to it that makes it fun to play all over again, that's a good thing. It's a success. The goal of having FUN was achieved.
New concepts in games that are not fun are failures, even if they are the most innovative thing ever.
If you don't like games or if you're bored with them and you want something different, maybe games aren't really for you. Maybe find a non-videogame hobby for a while.
Why would the people who were only waiting for a price drop wait another week? The price probably isn't going to drop again next week.
This question reminds me of the Europe launch. There was a lot of hype leading up to the launch. Sony had enough units to meet the demand the first week, so everyone who wanted one was able to buy one. Then the press made a big deal that sales were down 82% the second week, as if the reason was some kind of mystery.
I'm guessing they want to sell console games. (choices: PS2, Wii, PS3, 360) They want to offer games that require a lot of processing power and have HD. (remaining choices: PS3, 360) And they want to sell in volume to Asia. (remaining choice: PS3)
Are you actually, really, truly worried about the name?
If so, maybe write Sony a letter with your concerns (normally, that would be a sarcastic remark from me, but this time it is genuine). It won't get them to change the name, but it might make you feel better.
Because Slashdot isn't written for you personally. Rather it's for a whole lot of people in addition to you. And they don't all have precisely the same opinions as you. Nor are they obligated to choose as you have.
Some people besides you won't let one incident in the past, an incident that maybe didn't even affect them directly, decide their entire future from that day forward. Perhaps you want every single one of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for Sony (and Sony-BMG and presumably Sony-Ericsson) to lose their jobs for one bad decision of a few record company losers. But not everyone does.
So the PC and the PS3 you can get for $500 aren't really competitive. They are different. Why the comparison then? You can also get an iPhone for about $500 or certain breeds of dogs, or 12 pairs of jeans. You could also get a barebones PC and a DS or PSP.
A comparable PC gaming rig is a little more than $500. That's really my only point.
You can get a PC for $500. You can't get a PC that's a comparable (or even a capable) gaming rig for $500. That article doesn't accomplish your goal. It's already more than $500 and it doesn't include an OS. Does it do 60 frames per second at HD resolutions on new games?
If you want a gaming PC that plays new games, you're not going to be buying a $500 PC in general. It will cost somewhat more than that.
You don't have time for "heavy" games, but 3-4 really fun games for the Wii is not enough? When were you going to have time to play more than 3-4 games?
So you apparently want more than 4 games. But the PS3 is too expensive. Not the 360 though -- with 5 or more $60 games.
The criticisms are reasonable individually (except the "must have" and "refuse to pay" ones, which are pure emotional bias), but not together.
And lots of people are really anxious to give Sony an extra $100, just to be "nice"? When a consumer saves money, it's "getting a good deal". When a business saves money or charges more, call the cops. And call it "fairness".
So you hate one of the PS3 features (BTW: WTF is with that? I get not caring about blu-ray or not wanting it, but hating it?). And you want people to say it's a good value without that feature.
That's like saying, besides games and movies in HD and playing music and browsing the web and (other features here), what makes the PS3 worth the money?
It's worth the money to people who value the capabilities it has more than the money. To people who don't value the features or don't have the money, it clearly isn't worth the money. That's the way all purchases work. You can get mad at that if you like.
Slashdot Mirror
No I didn't. You did. It's your example. Come up with a non-deceptive example.
May I suggest a "surprise gift" example? Perhaps a business example: "The smith's son wants to build an inn, but didn't want others to know so he could buy land for less money". There are lots of non-deceptive examples.
---
It doesn't change the fact that privacy as we know it now is not the normal state of being. It's a recent cultural phenomenon probably based on the declining perceived trustworthiness of the people we interact with. Privacy is a personal defensiveness based on mistrust. Mistrust stems from being surrounded by and interacting with unfamiliar people.
Long ago, a kid would grow up and mostly interact with family, lifelong friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. These people shared a common heritage and culture and were under some kind of local authority, so there was a much better risk/reward ratio for trust. Also, it's quite hard to keep secrets from people when you sleep in the same room with them every night for 20 years. So keeping secrets was hard and there was little benefit.
Secrets were a special case -- an exceptional thing. Ordinary folks had few secrets. Many folks had none. In contrast, modern privacy advocates suggest that secrecy is the norm and that everyone owes it to you to be 100% secretive about you and not even try to find out any info.
Also, notice that the secret in your example is used to lie and deceive people. You might want to come up with a better example.
It not really all that secret either. Local folks would know. Only outsiders wouldn't know.
None of this supports the article's point that privacy (as we know it now) is natural or a biological imperative.
This is a nice selection of stories with the same idea:
If we just control people precisely and carefully in then minutest possible detail, we'll have utopia.
Privacy it a relatively modern concept. A few hundred years ago, it was unheard of.
Seriously, why are you defending Apple so vehemently?
I'm not defending them at all. You're attacking them.
When there are accusations, it's only fair if the people being accused are actually guilty of the things they're being accused of.
If you want to accuse Apple of doing something wrong, you should make the case that they did it and why it's wrong. There should be facts. There should be an explanation of why one action is wrong when other seemingly similar actions are not wrong. Arguments need a sound foundation if you want thinking people to agree with you. If your accusations can't hold up to the simplest scrutiny, then how can they be convincing?
I think there are far too many attacks on people. A lot of you folks out there must be quite unhappy to continually find enemies you want to attack all the time.
The new license allows Apple to create dervivative works of CUPS linked to Mac OS X without GPLing any of the derivative parts
Like Easy Software Products could have done before Apple bought CUPS from them.
Please explain how Apple owning CUPS is "less free" than Easy Software Products owning CUPS.
Games are not about innovation. Games are about FUN.
If you have a fun game that people have already played, and you add a minor tweak to it that makes it fun to play all over again, that's a good thing. It's a success. The goal of having FUN was achieved.
New concepts in games that are not fun are failures, even if they are the most innovative thing ever.
If you don't like games or if you're bored with them and you want something different, maybe games aren't really for you. Maybe find a non-videogame hobby for a while.
No. The press would bash them endlessly. Taking away fun press perks is the fastest way to get the word out that your game sucks.
Probably depends on what games are released .
Why would the people who were only waiting for a price drop wait another week? The price probably isn't going to drop again next week.
This question reminds me of the Europe launch. There was a lot of hype leading up to the launch. Sony had enough units to meet the demand the first week, so everyone who wanted one was able to buy one. Then the press made a big deal that sales were down 82% the second week, as if the reason was some kind of mystery.
I'm guessing they want to sell console games. (choices: PS2, Wii, PS3, 360)
They want to offer games that require a lot of processing power and have HD. (remaining choices: PS3, 360)
And they want to sell in volume to Asia. (remaining choice: PS3)
It's also a fantastic upscaling DVD player since the last firmware update.
Are you actually, really, truly worried about the name?
If so, maybe write Sony a letter with your concerns (normally, that would be a sarcastic remark from me, but this time it is genuine). It won't get them to change the name, but it might make you feel better.
Because Slashdot isn't written for you personally. Rather it's for a whole lot of people in addition to you. And they don't all have precisely the same opinions as you. Nor are they obligated to choose as you have.
Some people besides you won't let one incident in the past, an incident that maybe didn't even affect them directly, decide their entire future from that day forward. Perhaps you want every single one of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for Sony (and Sony-BMG and presumably Sony-Ericsson) to lose their jobs for one bad decision of a few record company losers. But not everyone does.
So the PC and the PS3 you can get for $500 aren't really competitive. They are different. Why the comparison then? You can also get an iPhone for about $500 or certain breeds of dogs, or 12 pairs of jeans. You could also get a barebones PC and a DS or PSP.
A comparable PC gaming rig is a little more than $500. That's really my only point.
You can get a PC for $500. You can't get a PC that's a comparable (or even a capable) gaming rig for $500. That article doesn't accomplish your goal. It's already more than $500 and it doesn't include an OS. Does it do 60 frames per second at HD resolutions on new games?
If you want a gaming PC that plays new games, you're not going to be buying a $500 PC in general. It will cost somewhat more than that.
He says: With $500, you can buy a personal computer.
No you can't. Not one that lets you play the new games at the same quality as the PS3 anyway.
The PS3 may or may not be too expensive still, but not for this reason.
Because usually electronics don't go down in price as time goes on?
In other words:
Don't confuse us with your facts and scientific studies. We're trying to demonize people here.
And what's the difference between having social skills and being able to fake having social skills?
You don't have time for "heavy" games, but 3-4 really fun games for the Wii is not enough? When were you going to have time to play more than 3-4 games?
So you apparently want more than 4 games. But the PS3 is too expensive. Not the 360 though -- with 5 or more $60 games.
The criticisms are reasonable individually (except the "must have" and "refuse to pay" ones, which are pure emotional bias), but not together.
And lots of people are really anxious to give Sony an extra $100, just to be "nice"? When a consumer saves money, it's "getting a good deal". When a business saves money or charges more, call the cops. And call it "fairness".
So you hate one of the PS3 features (BTW: WTF is with that? I get not caring about blu-ray or not wanting it, but hating it?). And you want people to say it's a good value without that feature.
That's like saying, besides games and movies in HD and playing music and browsing the web and (other features here), what makes the PS3 worth the money?
It's worth the money to people who value the capabilities it has more than the money. To people who don't value the features or don't have the money, it clearly isn't worth the money. That's the way all purchases work. You can get mad at that if you like.
having birds fly into it
Birds? What about flying fish? Won't someone think of the flying fish?
And can whales get these banned because they ruin the view?
no
Why is it when I don't have mod points, every idiot troll on the planet appears?
Submit it as an Ask Slashdot question. (The answer is hire a lawyer.)