Since Napster went down and companies have to assess their culpability in copyright protection issues. Letting people steal music via software they produce leaves them wide open for lawsuits from the RIAA.
Should the act of creating a tool that could be used for more than one purpose be outlawed because it could be used in an illegal manner?
(A hammer can be used to drive a nail, or break a window, for example. The nail could be driven into wood by a carpenter, or some poor guy's skull by a deranged psychopath. The window could be junk that needs to be broken up for disposal, or could be broken to make unlawful entry into someone's house. Should Stanley be sued by someone who had their home broken into by a thief breaking a window with a Stanley-brand hammer?)
I still have a problem with people using the words "stealing" or "theft" to describe the illegal sharing of music and such. If I "steal" something from you, you don't have it anymore. I gain, you lose. Simple concept, right?
Okay, now let's apply this to file sharing. You connect to Kazaa, and search for a song. You find several folks sharing it, and you download from them. In your terms, you've just "stolen" music. Now, it's not arguable that you've gained - but what has been lost? About the only thing you could say has been "lost" by the record company (remember, most artists don't eben hold the copyrights on their own songs, if they even write their own music) is the potential profit they might have made if you had purchased the music from them.
They still have the song, the copyright, the ability to press CDs, the artist's contract, and everything else they had before you downloaded the song. No money magically vanished from their bank accounts when you downloaded. It's arguable that no material "loss" has occurred at all -- therefore it's not "theft" or "stealing" or anything of the kind. What is it then? Plain and simple, it's copyright infringement, and should be referred to as such.
It's the same situation as using the word "piracy" to describe copyright infringement -- no looting and pillaging has occurred either.;P
I think the main problem may be that the *AAs think the general public can't understand the concept of a "no-loss" crime (or a crime of "lost potential", if you prefer that terminology) - so they use words that imply material loss has occurred... Unfortunately, this doesn't accurately describe the crime at hand - and leads to a lot of misunderstanding. (Not to mention whether our judicial system should be used to protect potential profits...)
Drop MS from the equation. Which is better buying a DVD a month or having unlimited movies on demand?
I'd argue the former, given that we're only dropping MS from the picture, and not the money or concept of "subscription".
With the former, I get a smaller selection that grows over time - but never goes away if I'm unable to pay for more. If after a month I decide to stop spending money on this, I still always have the product I paid for.
With the latter, I get a much larger selection, but if I'm ever unable to pay, I lose everything. If after a month I decide to stop spending money on this, I have no product - no proof of the money I spent - only memory.
I'm sure some people would disagree, and choose the latter, based on the short-term benefit. It's really a decision that's up to the individual to make. I choose to make the choice that gets me something permanent, rather than something larger, but temporary.
You have a harddrive full of useless music... just like you would have if you stopped paying the bill. Microsoft's stratigy is you pay $10 for a month of music. I think it's a wonderfull idea, and I'll be subscribing as soon as it's availible. If they go out of business, you simply stop paying for months of music. You arn't OUT of anything, except the option to continue paying for months of music.
Not quite.
Let's assume two people - one on the Apple system, and another on the MS system. Both decide to spend $20 (and only $20) on their service. The Apple user downloads 20 songs. The MS user pays for 2 months of service, and downloads some arbitrary number of songs.
Now, a month passes. The Apple user still has his/her 20 songs. The MS user is still happily downloading new songs. Both are happy (although admittedly, the MS user may have *access* to more songs at this point.)
Another month passes. The Apple user still has his/her 20 songs. The MS user, having been downloading happily for 2 months now, tries to play one of his/her downloaded songs, and gets an error: "Sorry, your subscription to MS Music Service has expired. Your license to play this song has therefore been revoked. If you would like to play this song, please renew your subscription to MS Music Service."
So, after 2 months, and $20 from both users pockets, what does each have to show for that $20?
The Apple user has 20 songs he/she can play at will.
The MS user has a hard disk full of useless music files, that refuse to play unless he/she coughs up more money. Arguably, since the music files are un-usable, it could be said that the MS user has absolutely nothing to show for his/her $20.
In the short term, the MS "solution" may seem the better deal (Only $10, download all you want, vs. $1 a song), but in the long run, Apple's "solution" actually gives the user something to show for his/her money - and doesn't keep asking for more money (although after getting a few songs, you'd probably be tempted to get a few more...;P ).
Agreed - which is why it's always a good idea to use the -u option to apt-get when upgrading off of unstable - saves a lot of headaches in the long run ^_^
Your comment likening collecting unemployment to a "vacation" is uninformed and demeaning.
Read my whole comment again. I was making a comment about how some people are abusing the system.I actually do know some people who feel that way. And it makes me feel just as sick as it does you. (Well, maybe less - I don't have kids (yet))
I can symphathise with your plight. I was in pretty much the exact same boat as you (again, without kids). The same blow financially. The same blow to the ego. The fear, depression, etc... I've been there (and really, I'm still there, as I'm still unemployed - I've just exhausted what benefits I could get. Now we're living off of a savings that's quickly running out - a savings that was really just getting started when the bubble burst and the bottom dropped out.
Trust me, I wasn't criticizing the people who are trying hard to find work, and taking unemployment seriously (otherwise I'd be criticizing myself!) -- I was criticizing the system for allowing some people to freeload.
Don't have a Zalman, but my Athlon 1600 runs between 42C (idle) up to around 55C (after a couple hours of UT2K3). For *my* machine, 57C idle would be quite high.
You don't mention which model Athlon you're using, however. I'd imagine the faster you go, the higher the "acceptable" temperature range goes, up to a point.
Aye, same deal in MA. I think we can do the reporting over the phone as well, but I always just sent in the card they'd send me every two weeks. 3 yes/no questions:
Did you look for work? Were you able and available to work? Did you work?
That's it. If you did work, there were some salary questions as well. If you didn't, it was just those three questions, a signature, and a stamp.
According to the materials I was sent when I signed up, a "journal" of sorts is required here too. I did this, although I was never asked by anyone for it (it's not like it takes that long to record who you apply to, speak to, etc.. if you're actually looking!). I can see how it would be *very* easy for someone to exploit the system and never look for work at all.
Up a bit north from here, in NH, the process is a bit different. AFAICT, claimants need to actually meet physically with an Unemployment Office employee every week or two, produce proof that they actually *did* actively look for work, and basically justify their claim.
IMHO, the NH system seems the better of the two. I'm sure there are loopholes, etc... but it definitely would cut down on claimants looking for a 26-week vacation after being laid off.
So, how exactly does this work when you would (presumably) like to show proof that you have, in fact, discovered a security flaw? How exactly does one expose the flaw, without talking about the method by which it is exploited?
I can say there's a possible buffer overflow in xyzzy.dll that could, conceivably lead to the execution of foreign instructions... But, if I'm not allowed to show the process by which I came across this flaw, how are my peers to verify that what I've found is indeed a flaw?
Aye. The 4L is a tank. Mine's also around 10-11 years old, and has been through hell. If only all hardware was that well-built! They're also quite cheap to replace - lots of them available (and, by the sounds of things, still working!) through Ebay.
You *might* be able to find a horribly-hackdubbed version under the name "Warriors of the Wind", which I think may have been released before the Disney acquisition of the rights to Ghibl movies. At least, I don't remember seeing the Disney name anywhere on it.
MS doesn't have to operate the XBox division like a "normal" console retailer like Nintendo. MS can afford to offer a rather extravagant ammount of console hardware, at the same price as competing consoles, taking a rather hefty loss, because it can back up that loss with the 85% profit margin on Windows/Office. The game licensing fees are small potatoes to them, while they're Nintendo's lifeblood.
(Sony's a little different - with their fingers in so many pies, a loss from one division won't necessarily harm the company as a whole - but there's no single market that SOny has an absolute stranglehold on, with an 85% profit margin, either.)
MS, by virtue of being able to eat the console division's losses, is able to do some things that, were I Nintendo, would worry me, and were I Sony, would concern me greatly.
First and foremost, is the extravagance of hardware MS can offer for the same price as "normal" consoles. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that the XBox is anything but a gaming PC in console-clothing. That's *not* a bad thing in and of itself -- gaming PC hardware is seriously powerful, and it shows in the XBox games that manage to take advantage of it.
MS sells this hardware at a HUGE loss. Sony and Nintendo, while initially selling their consoles at a loss as well, have managed to either break even, or even turn a profit on the consoles themselves (through production streamlining, economy of scale, etc...). But, both Nintendo and Sony *are* selling inferior hardware, when compared to the XBox. (No, I'm not a fan of the XBox - but I do recognize it's strengths).
In order to stay competetive, both Sony and Nintendo need to match, or exceed, the hardware offered by MS. This means offering more expensive hardware, at the same price. In other words, taking just as big a loss on the hardware as MS is. Can they reasonably do this? Arguably, the giant octopus that is SOny *might* be able to prop up the console division with profits from another division - but they don't have the cash cow MS has in Windows/Office, so whatever the loss, SOny will "feel" it. Nintendo doesn't have that kind of leverage at all. They have...well...they have the Gameboy. Arguably, they have a monopoly in the portable market (especially with Bandai pulling the Wonderswan) - but I seriously doubt they're raking in 85% profit margins there - and I have my doubts as to whether they'll be able to prop up the console division with their portable division.
The other option for SOny/Nintendo is to raise developer costs through licensing, or raise their "take" on the games, in order to make some of that profit back. They most likely won't do this, however, as MS would thereby gain an edge, offering a more attractive development path, and stealing developers that way. That's something Sony/Nintendo *don't* want, as without the developers, there aren't any games, and without games, there's no reason for people to buy the system.
So, you're right about inventory not mattering -- but I think you're wrong about MS "needing" people to buy/play games in order to be successful in the console market. There's more than one measure of success, and we've seen the underselling tactic before from MS (Netscape, anyone?), although in this case they're not *giving* away the product in question, just selling it at a loss that their competition will find hard to match.
If either Sony or Nintendo falls out of the market because they can't compete with MS, it doesn't matter how much money MS "lost" on the XBox - MS wins. If Sony/Nintendo make *less* money, because they have to match MS' hardware offerings without increasing the cost to developers or customers, MS wins. Plain and simple.
I did however find references to the $100 toilet seats, $640 toilet seats, $700 toilet seats, $500 toilet seats, $1,100 toilet seats, $50,000 toilet seats, $10,000 toilet seats and $600 toilet seats.
Gotta wonder what the justification was behind the $50,000 toilet seat... Was it...
Gem-encrusted?
Indestructible?
Made of alien metal harvested from a UFO
crash?
Able to cure any disease?
Self-cleaning?
Heated?
Massage?
Blessed by buddhist monks?
Covered in rich, Corinthian leather?
Made to swivel automatically so as to follow the sun?
Equipped with sophisticated security devices?
Personally tested and approved by <insert celebrity-of-the-week>?
Equipped with air-bags?
...Seat belts?
...Safety harnesses?
...A reading lamp?
...A lifetime replacement guarantee?
...An inflatable dinghy, just in case?
...it's own built-in sewage-treatment facility?
Used to flush sensitive documents from <insert shady corporation/government here>?
Able to prepare a full 5-course meal for a family of 4 in only 3 minutes?
Available for 5 easy payments of only $9,999.99 (plus tax, s/h, and other fees), but only if you order in the next 10 minutes (and receive the "Miracle Wipe" re-usable toilet paper sheet absolutely free)?
The idea itself is fairly sound - but his approach to it needs a bit of thought.
Linux isn't where MS would go if they decided to base an OS on a *nix backend - there are simply too many licensing issues with GPL'd code and MS's Proprietary nature. That having been said, they'd most likely take the same route Apple did with OS X - build on top of one of the BSDs. Under the BSD license, they could take the core code, modify it to their heart's content, and realease it under their same, existing business model.
What this would ammount to is a Windows API on top of BSD - similar to what the WINE project is trying to do under Linux, except (most likely) not open-source. They could even follow Apple's lead, and release the code to the BSD "core", while keeping the layers above that closed off.
It's not a bad concept, really. It would more than likely add some stability and security over WIn2K and XP (both of which, I will admit, are far more stable than their predecessors). Opening the "core" would be good PR, in much the same way Apple opening Darwin up was good PR.
The total stability/security of the system would, as always, depend on what is installed and enabled by default. MS doesn't have a very good track record here, but it's not out of the question for them to get better.
It could be a VERY good move for them, long-term. But they would need to weigh the benefits versus the drawbacks of leaving their NT core (which, if nothing else, has an immense ammount of driver support, both from MS, as well as 3rd parties).
I doubt it'll ever happen - but nothing's entirely impossible =)
This is the person who is helping to take YOUR rights away, because he can't be bothered to buy music or use rental services correctly. He has no qualms about stealing music or movies from people who trust him and continue to provide him with their services.
I'm not so sure - he/she only admits to having a fairly large quantity of mp3s. Those *could* be perfectly legal fair-use rips made from bought CDs. In fact, we should presume them to be innocent, legal copies, until stated otherwise.
As for the rental bit...that one's a little hairy. The "Innocent until proven guilty" stand on this would be that the copy is watched once, then deleted. While still technically illegal, the net outcome is the same as if the copy hadn't been made - and could fall under the umbrella of "timeshifting", which is legal (for now...) As long as the copy is destroyed after viewing, and not distributed, that seems a valid argument. The original poster doesn't say anything regarding what happens to the copy after viewing, so I guess we'll never know =)
I have a few friends that refise to believe anime is anything other than hentai stuff...sad, but true. Their first exposure was Urotsukidoji (aka: Overfiend), and I guess it scarred them for life.
As for the kids-crap anime...a lot of it isn't as bad as it looks on american tv. My fiancee and I kind-of got into Yugioh, mostly laughing at the "seriousness" of it all (We used to be heavily into the Magic card game, back when it was popular - we knew people who took the game as seriously as that show...and we laughed at them too;P ). Then we decided to order some cheap subbed versions on Ebay...HUGE difference (if you can get around the sometimes-amusing "engrish" subbing job).
Evidently japanese children can understand such concepts as "mystery" and "that will be explained later" - whilst american kids get the "everything laid out" version, with extra "special effects" added in to fill the time cut out by removing any halfway-intelligent scene. Sure, the first season is all about selling cards. Lots of cards. The later seasons start to get rather odd, though...and some of the episodes are quite enjoyable in japanese.
DBZ, though, is completely mindless action. I'll agree there =)
After all, police officers are fairly likely to get shot by their own weapon also,
I'd almost be willing to say that police officers would be more likely to get shot with their own weapon...simply based on the likliness of the circumstances they could find themselves in.
Joe Civilian generally doesn't wear his gun everywhere he goes. If he owns a gun, it's most likely in a gun cabinet, or a closet in his home. Obstensively, it's there "for protection" in the event his home is broken into. While lots of homes are broken into every day, I'd say it's a fairly low percentage chance that any given home will be broken into. Joe's exposure to a situation he'd be shot by that gun are fairly slim (discounting other possibilities, like suicidal tendencies, or somesuch)
Police officers do have their guns on their person most of the time. They also have a much higher exposure to criminal elements (as is their job) who could, conceivably, take the gun away and fire it at said officer. Simply by their exposure to the situation, it seems more likely for the cop's gun to "need" this sort of protection than for Joe's.
And I agree that this legislation makes very little sense, and is most likely politically motivated rather than truly in the best interests of NJ citizens.
Dreamweaver is what MS has their sights set one -- not Flash. Think about it. MS pretty much controls the browser end of things through IE. What they don't control is the creation of webpages. Most of the industry that I've been in contact with have a very low opinion of Frontpage, but a very high opinion of Dreamweaver (when it comes to GUI HTML editors). Acquiring Macromedia will allow them to either integrate Dreamweaver into Frontpage, or kill it altogether. Either way, the acquisition gives them a major hold on the webpage creation industry.
It would also give them a chance to crush Cold Fusion once-and-for-all...replacing it with ASP.NET, of course... (not that I see many CF sites anymore - most are either ASP, JSP, or PHP nowadays)
OR one that validates user input (removing the slow interaction between server and client just to confirm they actually typed something useful into the text box)
You still need to validate the data server-side. It's not exactly smart practice to trust ANYTHING that is "validated" only from the client-side, especially with javascript. A malicious user could simply save your input page locally, remove or replace your "validation" code, and send something unexpected to your server through their newly-editted page.
For a first-line of defense, a JS form validator isn't bad - and it is a relatively quick way to tell someone "Hey, you forgot to enter your password"...but you still need to make the same checks server-side in case someone decides to "go around" your JS validator.
20 years ago UHF25 in boston got it right with ForceFive. Each weekday had it's own speficic 30min show. PLUS 30min of starblazers (their big hit) Not sure if it was new one day/wk, reruns the rest. Just expand this concept to a 2-4 hour block.
OMG - someone else who remembers the pre-FOX channel 25 out of Boston! I grew up on that stuff =)
Star Blazers (AKA: Space Battleship Yamato), StarVengers (AKA: Getter Robo G), Gaiking, Danguard Ace, Spaceketeers, and Grandizer...those were the days... Set me up for a healthy anime addiction now that I'm older;P
I'd love to see some of those old series brought back over, and *not* hacked to pieces...of course, I'm not sure if Terry's rights to the ForceFive versions of the series would prohibit that...probably =(
NOTE TO TOONAMI:: DO NOT CENSOR THE ANIME
I second that. It'd be even better if they also showed it in the original japanese ("Adults" should be able to read, right? Therefore subtitles won't be a problem;P )
Slashdot Mirror
More than likely, Apple's response to this would be "That's what the iPod is for" ;P
Since Napster went down and companies have to assess their culpability in copyright protection issues. Letting people steal music via software they produce leaves them wide open for lawsuits from the RIAA.
;P
Should the act of creating a tool that could be used for more than one purpose be outlawed because it could be used in an illegal manner?
(A hammer can be used to drive a nail, or break a window, for example. The nail could be driven into wood by a carpenter, or some poor guy's skull by a deranged psychopath. The window could be junk that needs to be broken up for disposal, or could be broken to make unlawful entry into someone's house. Should Stanley be sued by someone who had their home broken into by a thief breaking a window with a Stanley-brand hammer?)
I still have a problem with people using the words "stealing" or "theft" to describe the illegal sharing of music and such. If I "steal" something from you, you don't have it anymore. I gain, you lose. Simple concept, right?
Okay, now let's apply this to file sharing. You connect to Kazaa, and search for a song. You find several folks sharing it, and you download from them. In your terms, you've just "stolen" music. Now, it's not arguable that you've gained - but what has been lost? About the only thing you could say has been "lost" by the record company (remember, most artists don't eben hold the copyrights on their own songs, if they even write their own music) is the potential profit they might have made if you had purchased the music from them.
They still have the song, the copyright, the ability to press CDs, the artist's contract, and everything else they had before you downloaded the song. No money magically vanished from their bank accounts when you downloaded. It's arguable that no material "loss" has occurred at all -- therefore it's not "theft" or "stealing" or anything of the kind. What is it then? Plain and simple, it's copyright infringement, and should be referred to as such.
It's the same situation as using the word "piracy" to describe copyright infringement -- no looting and pillaging has occurred either.
I think the main problem may be that the *AAs think the general public can't understand the concept of a "no-loss" crime (or a crime of "lost potential", if you prefer that terminology) - so they use words that imply material loss has occurred... Unfortunately, this doesn't accurately describe the crime at hand - and leads to a lot of misunderstanding. (Not to mention whether our judicial system should be used to protect potential profits...)
Drop MS from the equation. Which is better buying a DVD a month or having unlimited movies on demand?
I'd argue the former, given that we're only dropping MS from the picture, and not the money or concept of "subscription".
With the former, I get a smaller selection that grows over time - but never goes away if I'm unable to pay for more. If after a month I decide to stop spending money on this, I still always have the product I paid for.
With the latter, I get a much larger selection, but if I'm ever unable to pay, I lose everything. If after a month I decide to stop spending money on this, I have no product - no proof of the money I spent - only memory.
I'm sure some people would disagree, and choose the latter, based on the short-term benefit. It's really a decision that's up to the individual to make. I choose to make the choice that gets me something permanent, rather than something larger, but temporary.
You have a harddrive full of useless music... just like you would have if you stopped paying the bill. Microsoft's stratigy is you pay $10 for a month of music. I think it's a wonderfull idea, and I'll be subscribing as soon as it's availible. If they go out of business, you simply stop paying for months of music. You arn't OUT of anything, except the option to continue paying for months of music.
/her 20 songs. The MS user, having been downloading happily for 2 months now, tries to play one of his/her downloaded songs, and gets an error: "Sorry, your subscription to MS Music Service has expired. Your license to play this song has therefore been revoked. If you would like to play this song, please renew your subscription to MS Music Service."
Not quite.
Let's assume two people - one on the Apple system, and another on the MS system. Both decide to spend $20 (and only $20) on their service. The Apple user downloads 20 songs. The MS user pays for 2 months of service, and downloads some arbitrary number of songs.
Now, a month passes. The Apple user still has his/her 20 songs. The MS user is still happily downloading new songs. Both are happy (although admittedly, the MS user may have *access* to more songs at this point.)
Another month passes. The Apple user still has his
So, after 2 months, and $20 from both users pockets, what does each have to show for that $20?
The Apple user has 20 songs he/she can play at will.
The MS user has a hard disk full of useless music files, that refuse to play unless he/she coughs up more money. Arguably, since the music files are un-usable, it could be said that the MS user has absolutely nothing to show for his/her $20.
In the short term, the MS "solution" may seem the better deal (Only $10, download all you want, vs. $1 a song), but in the long run, Apple's "solution" actually gives the user something to show for his/her money - and doesn't keep asking for more money (although after getting a few songs, you'd probably be tempted to get a few more...;P ).
Agreed - which is why it's always a good idea to use the -u option to apt-get when upgrading off of unstable - saves a lot of headaches in the long run ^_^
Your comment likening collecting unemployment to a "vacation" is uninformed and demeaning.
Read my whole comment again. I was making a comment about how some people are abusing the system.I actually do know some people who feel that way. And it makes me feel just as sick as it does you. (Well, maybe less - I don't have kids (yet))
I can symphathise with your plight. I was in pretty much the exact same boat as you (again, without kids). The same blow financially. The same blow to the ego. The fear, depression, etc... I've been there (and really, I'm still there, as I'm still unemployed - I've just exhausted what benefits I could get. Now we're living off of a savings that's quickly running out - a savings that was really just getting started when the bubble burst and the bottom dropped out.
Trust me, I wasn't criticizing the people who are trying hard to find work, and taking unemployment seriously (otherwise I'd be criticizing myself!) -- I was criticizing the system for allowing some people to freeload.
No...but I'm betting he's trying really hard to believe Space Battleship Yamato (AKA: Star Blazers) doesn't ;P
Don't have a Zalman, but my Athlon 1600 runs between 42C (idle) up to around 55C (after a couple hours of UT2K3). For *my* machine, 57C idle would be quite high.
You don't mention which model Athlon you're using, however. I'd imagine the faster you go, the higher the "acceptable" temperature range goes, up to a point.
Aye, same deal in MA. I think we can do the reporting over the phone as well, but I always just sent in the card they'd send me every two weeks. 3 yes/no questions:
Did you look for work?
Were you able and available to work?
Did you work?
That's it. If you did work, there were some salary questions as well. If you didn't, it was just those three questions, a signature, and a stamp.
According to the materials I was sent when I signed up, a "journal" of sorts is required here too. I did this, although I was never asked by anyone for it (it's not like it takes that long to record who you apply to, speak to, etc.. if you're actually looking!). I can see how it would be *very* easy for someone to exploit the system and never look for work at all.
Up a bit north from here, in NH, the process is a bit different. AFAICT, claimants need to actually meet physically with an Unemployment Office employee every week or two, produce proof that they actually *did* actively look for work, and basically justify their claim.
IMHO, the NH system seems the better of the two. I'm sure there are loopholes, etc... but it definitely would cut down on claimants looking for a 26-week vacation after being laid off.
So, how exactly does this work when you would (presumably) like to show proof that you have, in fact, discovered a security flaw? How exactly does one expose the flaw, without talking about the method by which it is exploited?
I can say there's a possible buffer overflow in xyzzy.dll that could, conceivably lead to the execution of foreign instructions... But, if I'm not allowed to show the process by which I came across this flaw, how are my peers to verify that what I've found is indeed a flaw?
Aye. The 4L is a tank. Mine's also around 10-11 years old, and has been through hell. If only all hardware was that well-built! They're also quite cheap to replace - lots of them available (and, by the sounds of things, still working!) through Ebay.
What if the grape nuts really tasted like chicken?
;P
I would assume they'd be called "Chicken Nuts"...oh wait...they don't taste like grapes now, do they...
Nevermind
You *might* be able to find a horribly-hackdubbed version under the name "Warriors of the Wind", which I think may have been released before the Disney acquisition of the rights to Ghibl movies. At least, I don't remember seeing the Disney name anywhere on it.
MS doesn't have to operate the XBox division like a "normal" console retailer like Nintendo. MS can afford to offer a rather extravagant ammount of console hardware, at the same price as competing consoles, taking a rather hefty loss, because it can back up that loss with the 85% profit margin on Windows/Office. The game licensing fees are small potatoes to them, while they're Nintendo's lifeblood.
(Sony's a little different - with their fingers in so many pies, a loss from one division won't necessarily harm the company as a whole - but there's no single market that SOny has an absolute stranglehold on, with an 85% profit margin, either.)
MS, by virtue of being able to eat the console division's losses, is able to do some things that, were I Nintendo, would worry me, and were I Sony, would concern me greatly.
First and foremost, is the extravagance of hardware MS can offer for the same price as "normal" consoles. I don't think it can reasonably be argued that the XBox is anything but a gaming PC in console-clothing. That's *not* a bad thing in and of itself -- gaming PC hardware is seriously powerful, and it shows in the XBox games that manage to take advantage of it.
MS sells this hardware at a HUGE loss. Sony and Nintendo, while initially selling their consoles at a loss as well, have managed to either break even, or even turn a profit on the consoles themselves (through production streamlining, economy of scale, etc...). But, both Nintendo and Sony *are* selling inferior hardware, when compared to the XBox. (No, I'm not a fan of the XBox - but I do recognize it's strengths).
In order to stay competetive, both Sony and Nintendo need to match, or exceed, the hardware offered by MS. This means offering more expensive hardware, at the same price. In other words, taking just as big a loss on the hardware as MS is. Can they reasonably do this? Arguably, the giant octopus that is SOny *might* be able to prop up the console division with profits from another division - but they don't have the cash cow MS has in Windows/Office, so whatever the loss, SOny will "feel" it. Nintendo doesn't have that kind of leverage at all. They have...well...they have the Gameboy. Arguably, they have a monopoly in the portable market (especially with Bandai pulling the Wonderswan) - but I seriously doubt they're raking in 85% profit margins there - and I have my doubts as to whether they'll be able to prop up the console division with their portable division.
The other option for SOny/Nintendo is to raise developer costs through licensing, or raise their "take" on the games, in order to make some of that profit back. They most likely won't do this, however, as MS would thereby gain an edge, offering a more attractive development path, and stealing developers that way. That's something Sony/Nintendo *don't* want, as without the developers, there aren't any games, and without games, there's no reason for people to buy the system.
So, you're right about inventory not mattering -- but I think you're wrong about MS "needing" people to buy/play games in order to be successful in the console market. There's more than one measure of success, and we've seen the underselling tactic before from MS (Netscape, anyone?), although in this case they're not *giving* away the product in question, just selling it at a loss that their competition will find hard to match.
If either Sony or Nintendo falls out of the market because they can't compete with MS, it doesn't matter how much money MS "lost" on the XBox - MS wins. If Sony/Nintendo make *less* money, because they have to match MS' hardware offerings without increasing the cost to developers or customers, MS wins. Plain and simple.
I'd assume the new Panzer Dragoon game...
Gotta wonder what the justification was behind the $50,000 toilet seat... Was it...
So...with a datarate of 5Mb/sec, and a capacity of 5000Mb (industry Gb = 1000Mb...bleh), you're looking at 1000 sec (16 min, 40 sec) to "fill" one.
Reminds me of the "old days" of Zip drives that took 10-12 minutes to fill. Set it to copy, go to lunch.
Sounds about perfect for use in an mp3/ogg player (1-2 sec to load any given track into memory).
The idea itself is fairly sound - but his approach to it needs a bit of thought.
Linux isn't where MS would go if they decided to base an OS on a *nix backend - there are simply too many licensing issues with GPL'd code and MS's Proprietary nature. That having been said, they'd most likely take the same route Apple did with OS X - build on top of one of the BSDs. Under the BSD license, they could take the core code, modify it to their heart's content, and realease it under their same, existing business model.
What this would ammount to is a Windows API on top of BSD - similar to what the WINE project is trying to do under Linux, except (most likely) not open-source. They could even follow Apple's lead, and release the code to the BSD "core", while keeping the layers above that closed off.
It's not a bad concept, really. It would more than likely add some stability and security over WIn2K and XP (both of which, I will admit, are far more stable than their predecessors). Opening the "core" would be good PR, in much the same way Apple opening Darwin up was good PR.
The total stability/security of the system would, as always, depend on what is installed and enabled by default. MS doesn't have a very good track record here, but it's not out of the question for them to get better.
It could be a VERY good move for them, long-term. But they would need to weigh the benefits versus the drawbacks of leaving their NT core (which, if nothing else, has an immense ammount of driver support, both from MS, as well as 3rd parties).
I doubt it'll ever happen - but nothing's entirely impossible =)
This is the person who is helping to take YOUR rights away, because he can't be bothered to buy music or use rental services correctly. He has no qualms about stealing music or movies from people who trust him and continue to provide him with their services.
I'm not so sure - he/she only admits to having a fairly large quantity of mp3s. Those *could* be perfectly legal fair-use rips made from bought CDs. In fact, we should presume them to be innocent, legal copies, until stated otherwise.
As for the rental bit...that one's a little hairy. The "Innocent until proven guilty" stand on this would be that the copy is watched once, then deleted. While still technically illegal, the net outcome is the same as if the copy hadn't been made - and could fall under the umbrella of "timeshifting", which is legal (for now...) As long as the copy is destroyed after viewing, and not distributed, that seems a valid argument. The original poster doesn't say anything regarding what happens to the copy after viewing, so I guess we'll never know =)
I have a few friends that refise to believe anime is anything other than hentai stuff...sad, but true. Their first exposure was Urotsukidoji (aka: Overfiend), and I guess it scarred them for life.
;P ). Then we decided to order some cheap subbed versions on Ebay...HUGE difference (if you can get around the sometimes-amusing "engrish" subbing job).
As for the kids-crap anime...a lot of it isn't as bad as it looks on american tv. My fiancee and I kind-of got into Yugioh, mostly laughing at the "seriousness" of it all (We used to be heavily into the Magic card game, back when it was popular - we knew people who took the game as seriously as that show...and we laughed at them too
Evidently japanese children can understand such concepts as "mystery" and "that will be explained later" - whilst american kids get the "everything laid out" version, with extra "special effects" added in to fill the time cut out by removing any halfway-intelligent scene. Sure, the first season is all about selling cards. Lots of cards. The later seasons start to get rather odd, though...and some of the episodes are quite enjoyable in japanese.
DBZ, though, is completely mindless action. I'll agree there =)
Actually, Dual was pretty bad no matter what language you watch it in.
.hack//Sign...
Actually, I didn't think it was *that* bad, if you take it as a pseudo-satire of Eva...Eva-Lite, if you will.
Of course, the ending completely sucked, but then again, so did the ending to
After all, police officers are fairly likely to get shot by their own weapon also,
I'd almost be willing to say that police officers would be more likely to get shot with their own weapon...simply based on the likliness of the circumstances they could find themselves in.
Joe Civilian generally doesn't wear his gun everywhere he goes. If he owns a gun, it's most likely in a gun cabinet, or a closet in his home. Obstensively, it's there "for protection" in the event his home is broken into. While lots of homes are broken into every day, I'd say it's a fairly low percentage chance that any given home will be broken into. Joe's exposure to a situation he'd be shot by that gun are fairly slim (discounting other possibilities, like suicidal tendencies, or somesuch)
Police officers do have their guns on their person most of the time. They also have a much higher exposure to criminal elements (as is their job) who could, conceivably, take the gun away and fire it at said officer. Simply by their exposure to the situation, it seems more likely for the cop's gun to "need" this sort of protection than for Joe's.
And I agree that this legislation makes very little sense, and is most likely politically motivated rather than truly in the best interests of NJ citizens.
Someone with mod points mod the parent up.
Dreamweaver is what MS has their sights set one -- not Flash. Think about it. MS pretty much controls the browser end of things through IE. What they don't control is the creation of webpages. Most of the industry that I've been in contact with have a very low opinion of Frontpage, but a very high opinion of Dreamweaver (when it comes to GUI HTML editors). Acquiring Macromedia will allow them to either integrate Dreamweaver into Frontpage, or kill it altogether. Either way, the acquisition gives them a major hold on the webpage creation industry.
It would also give them a chance to crush Cold Fusion once-and-for-all...replacing it with ASP.NET, of course... (not that I see many CF sites anymore - most are either ASP, JSP, or PHP nowadays)
Flash would just be frosting.
OR one that validates user input (removing the slow interaction between server and client just to confirm they actually typed something useful into the text box)
You still need to validate the data server-side. It's not exactly smart practice to trust ANYTHING that is "validated" only from the client-side, especially with javascript. A malicious user could simply save your input page locally, remove or replace your "validation" code, and send something unexpected to your server through their newly-editted page.
For a first-line of defense, a JS form validator isn't bad - and it is a relatively quick way to tell someone "Hey, you forgot to enter your password"...but you still need to make the same checks server-side in case someone decides to "go around" your JS validator.
20 years ago UHF25 in boston got it right with ForceFive. Each weekday had it's own speficic 30min show. PLUS 30min of starblazers (their big hit) Not sure if it was new one day/wk, reruns the rest. Just expand this concept to a 2-4 hour block.
;P
;P )
OMG - someone else who remembers the pre-FOX channel 25 out of Boston! I grew up on that stuff =)
Star Blazers (AKA: Space Battleship Yamato), StarVengers (AKA: Getter Robo G), Gaiking, Danguard Ace, Spaceketeers, and Grandizer...those were the days... Set me up for a healthy anime addiction now that I'm older
I'd love to see some of those old series brought back over, and *not* hacked to pieces...of course, I'm not sure if Terry's rights to the ForceFive versions of the series would prohibit that...probably =(
NOTE TO TOONAMI:: DO NOT CENSOR THE ANIME
I second that. It'd be even better if they also showed it in the original japanese ("Adults" should be able to read, right? Therefore subtitles won't be a problem