The Doctor and the Tardis influence each other, and the Doctor's fascination with Earth is well known, so a Tardis with lots of recognisably "Earth-tech" is hardly that much of a stretch. Anyway, the new Tardis is kinda SteamPunk, and I can't argue with that. Personally I like the new Tardis set, not sure about the "storm cloud tunnel" in the opening credits... but I guess we'll get used to that.
It all got a big thumbs up from me. Thanks Auntie Beeb, glad to see you spending my license fee on something I actually like!
IBM have already stated that they will use their IP to protect Linux, especially against Microsoft. If Microsoft really want to try this they'll do so knowing they'll need to defend Windows IP against IBM - I wouldn't fancy their chances.
One of the things I think is key to the enjoyment of the single player in ODST is something it forces on the player - you get different weapons as you "step into the boots" of the others in your squad. It's a little thing, but you're forced to use different weapons, and often different tactics. Once you've played it, you CAN blast through it pretty quickly (the sequence with Dutch in the wildlife park CAN be amazingly quick - and seeing how fast you can do that is fun in itself) but there is a lot to see and do. It doesn't feel quite as meaty as the other Halo games, but as you say that is reflected in the price. In a lot of ways ODST is technically the strongest Halo yet. It's also the most underrated of the Halo games.
I think this all depends. There are some games that are so good, that you're going to buy them no matter what. Also what if the game is far longer than the original (in a good way) does it matter that it doesn't fundamentally change things? The cost of producing a game is at least as much tied to the "digital assets" as the "engine". When you think about it, most modern games use the same underlying technology anyway, I'm not sure I'm persuaded by your argument.
This isn't really fair, the original Halo is the first FPS I can think of that had vehicles that the player could use. It is also the first time I can remember computer controlled players being useful (well manning the turret in the Warthog is what I'm really thinking about). There was also a plot, with a couple of surprises. I also particularly enjoyed the "mad dash" Warthog ride at the end - the best ending of any of the Halo games.
Now it's true that a theme of all the Halo games has been fight across a level, then turn around and fight back across it - but let's cut them some slack here, the levels were pretty nicely designed (you've picked the weakest) and there was a lot of variation in both what the player had to do, and the level design.
Halo has influenced FPS design, the original wasn't perfect, the multiplayer was very lacking for example, but a very good game indeed.
Well one of the problems with many new phones is they don't actually do the "talking" part all that well. However, as long as the "talking" part is OK I'm coming around of the other features. I ALWAYS have my phone with me, now I don't always have it switched on - but it's a constant companion (rather like a wristwatch used to be).
So given that below a certain size it becomes hard to talk on (the buttons get too small, the screen too small... you get the idea) it might as well do other stuff. For me, when I start to think like this, the very first thing that springs to mind is email, then the web. But eventually games come up, now I still want "talking" to work really well - but I am prepared to play games on it. Given this, I want games that are "quick" - I don't want to spend much time, things that take 5-10 mins OR things that can be interrupted (Chess?)
This is what I think Sony don't get - the PSP tries to reproduce the feel of playing a PS2 - but I don't want that on the move. If I'm out, then I don't want to sit and play something for more than at most 15 mins. I have a PSP and it totally misses the point (and I don't use it).
I do play Nintendo DS - but that satisfies my "5-10 mins" craving. I do sometimes play it in the evening sitting about, and then I might play for longer, but that's the exception, not the rule (Mario Kart often evokes this exception).
The Sony PSP fails for me, because:
1) The unit is too big 2) The controls suck 3) The games take too long to play
I don't have an iPhone - but if I did I'd probably play games on it. I think the iPad might eat Sony's lunch - it looks great for games.
I'm thinking of Pounds Sterling (UK money) as that's what I have in my pocket (though not much of it) the scruffy fiver I have here does indeed say "I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF FIVE Pounds" [sic]. Clearly our money is different to yours.
This is kind of the point I'm making, in game money IS NOT real money. If it is then I can create as much of it as I need (I'll get hyperinflation with my "JezDollars" but I just make more of them), a region that recognises my "JezDollars" as real currency is in serious economic trouble as I ram this up and dump these things buying up their local currency.
The South Koreans simply cannot understand simple economics, because if they did they'd never do this.
I suppose it's OK, if you can pay it with Linden Dollars.
I seriously don't see how this'll work. Real money has the "I promise to pay the bearer" (or similar) thingy, virtual currencies don't. This seems like a pretty huge difference, I don't think the South Koreans have properly thought about it. Imagine if I did pay my income tax with Linden Dollars... Do I only get virtual health care? (I'm a Brit... I realise in the US this isn't funny).
As long as I can't buy real things with my virtual money then it's not real money! As soon as I can, well then I guess it is (as long as the goods have title, I have to be able to resell them).
Yes, you've breached the license - you're not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. You buy an Apple computer, modify it and sell that with Mac OS X installed then you're golden.
People actually do that, you can buy a "Mac tablet" that's a modified MacBook, all perfectly legal.
The section you're complaining about is ON THE BOX. The rest of the EULA is common practice, and well understood by buyers. It's long, but nothing is surprising. The EULA is available before purchase, and this is printed on the box (true you have to obtain the EULA but it details how to do that before purchase).
Honestly I can't believe you're trying to present this as Apple attempting to sell Mac OS X and hiding the fact you need a Mac to run it - nothing could be further from the truth!
If you're not an OEM you don't need to comply with the OEM license so sure, if you want to build a business buying laptops through retail and selling them secondhand on eBay with modifications to Windows there is nothing stopping you.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, if you're an OEM there are restrictions on what you can and can't do. You think this unfair?
Now forget the "I'm and OEM" nonsense and look at it from a customer's perspective again. You buy a laptop with Windows on it, and someone has modified Windows such that something you wanted to do with it doesn't work - happy? These legal bindings can protect customers as well.
You might feel differently if you had created the product! What you're doing (though I don't think you mean to) is stopping someone from being able to make money from their own work. Now you're probably going to hit back with "others can", but is that really true? Microsoft distort the whole market (and as far as you're concerned are as guilty) by their shear size. The market of operating systems is far from a level playing field.
EULAs are agreed to by buyers, under no duress, why is this wrong or immoral? You don't like them, fine don't agree with one then, nobody is forcing you. The fact is a lot of people view them as acceptable. Would the transaction be better without an EULA? Yes, lower prices would be nice too, but I accept that the ability of the vender to make a profit would be adversely impacted without the EULA, as I want to be able to do further business with the vender, then their solvency is worth something to me, hence I'll accept Apple's EULA. You can choose a different path.
People do sell modified Macs, Apple might not like it but it's allowed. All Apple are saying is Mac OS X can only be installed on a Mac, let's not lose sight of that. They don't have a monopoly, so there is no anti-trust, product tying is perfectly legal and acceptable. You don't **need** to run Mac OS X, there are alternatives in the market. If you want it, then you buy the machine that is allowed to run it, if that's not acceptable, then you buy an alternative (or legally obtain an alternative).
You can't compare Apple to Microsoft - Microsoft have a monopoly, often there is NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. The two aren't comparable.
Intel's actions here are clearly anti-trust, and on a par with those of Microsoft.
My point is that OEMs weren't free to install Linux on a subset of their products - that's the point!
We cannot know what would have happened without Microsoft, I suspect that we'd have a similar position to he one we have, just different faces. Probably Digital Research.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
You cannot modify the code without accepting the license! They let you run the software, but that's it! I'll agree it's pretty permissive, and I'll argue that the restrictions actually add value, but there is very little "clear air" between the two situations.
Further more the GPL is infectious, if I add a small amount of GPL code to a project then the whole thing becomes GPL. You're trying to draw a distinction between two sets of people: developers and users, why should this exist? They all use the software, the EULA isn't different, just more restrictive.
You don't like Apple's EULA, fine, don't run the software - but that doesn't make the idea of a EULA less valid. What if I wanted to write code and specify that I didn't want it to be used for military use, should I not be allowed to do that?!
You have the choice to ignore Apple and its products, that's fine, I can see that. I'd be worried if you didn't (I want alternatives to the Mac, just as I want alternatives to Windows). But I think on balance Apple make the industry richer, add to the ecosystem, as do Microsoft. I don't think ending their business models are in the interests of consumers. I do think Microsoft have too much power to be allowed to do whatever they want (and they've show that many times) but I don't think that of Apple. I also don't think Linux needs much help - it looks pretty self sustaining at this point. So in general I think EULAs are "OK", I've published code with them, and didn't feel any problem about that, you have the choice to not use the stuff if you find the terms unreasonable. This isn't the same as anti-trust, there are alternatives (sadly I've never created anything as successful as Windows).
Much of the OEM argument is about how they sought to control how OEMs were restricted from selling competitors products. They told PC makers that if they sold PCs with other operating systems they'd have to pay far higher prices for Windows, this throttled other offerings like BeOS before they had a chance.
Microsoft aren't the heroes of the PC revolution you think they are, if anyone is it's Compaq - they paid for the IBM BIOS to be reverse engineered, and that allowed the clone market to get started.
Microsoft have actually helped keep PC prices high - look at the portion of the PCs price that is in it's software - it has raised significantly.
I cannot know what the world would have been like without Microsoft, their OS has been such an integral part of the industry for so long it's impossible to know, but I do know they stifled competition as soon as they achieved dominance.
Do I hate Microsoft? Of course not! I don't like a great many things they've done, but they have also got a lot of things right. I have plenty of Microsoft product that I use all the time, both hardware and software - but I also know my history, and know that the regulator would be well advised to keep close tabs on them, they can be very naughty boys.
Err, the GPL does impose terms. Try putting GPL code into a device then selling it, not allowing anyone access to the code (no, don't - the FSF will come after you, and rightly so).
You're trying to make the GPL an exception - it isn't.
If Apple cannot enforce the EULA then Mac OS X cannot exist at its current price point. What Psystar tried to do was never going to work, win or lose the case.
We've seen lose - I won't go over it.
If they'd won then Apple's business model would have been sunk, and they'd have no alternative but to drop the Mac and raise the price of Mac OS X - a lot. It's questionable if Mac OS X could have survived (I'd suggest it probably wouldn't have). Whatever Psystar's business would have been destroyed.
Psystar was always a "lose-lose" proposition.
The only silver lining for Apple would have been Microsoft would have been exactly the same situation, but far less affected as they get much of their profit from Office.
The other big difference was Microsoft telling OEMs they had to buy Windows for every computer they sold (no matter if it was supplied with Windows or not) and restricting what non-Microsoft OEM software could be loaded. Hardly paragons of the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
The Doctor and the Tardis influence each other, and the Doctor's fascination with Earth is well known, so a Tardis with lots of recognisably "Earth-tech" is hardly that much of a stretch. Anyway, the new Tardis is kinda SteamPunk, and I can't argue with that. Personally I like the new Tardis set, not sure about the "storm cloud tunnel" in the opening credits ... but I guess we'll get used to that.
It all got a big thumbs up from me. Thanks Auntie Beeb, glad to see you spending my license fee on something I actually like!
IBM have already stated that they will use their IP to protect Linux, especially against Microsoft. If Microsoft really want to try this they'll do so knowing they'll need to defend Windows IP against IBM - I wouldn't fancy their chances.
One of the things I think is key to the enjoyment of the single player in ODST is something it forces on the player - you get different weapons as you "step into the boots" of the others in your squad. It's a little thing, but you're forced to use different weapons, and often different tactics. Once you've played it, you CAN blast through it pretty quickly (the sequence with Dutch in the wildlife park CAN be amazingly quick - and seeing how fast you can do that is fun in itself) but there is a lot to see and do. It doesn't feel quite as meaty as the other Halo games, but as you say that is reflected in the price. In a lot of ways ODST is technically the strongest Halo yet. It's also the most underrated of the Halo games.
I think this all depends. There are some games that are so good, that you're going to buy them no matter what. Also what if the game is far longer than the original (in a good way) does it matter that it doesn't fundamentally change things? The cost of producing a game is at least as much tied to the "digital assets" as the "engine". When you think about it, most modern games use the same underlying technology anyway, I'm not sure I'm persuaded by your argument.
All sounds a bit "new Coke" to me...
This isn't really fair, the original Halo is the first FPS I can think of that had vehicles that the player could use. It is also the first time I can remember computer controlled players being useful (well manning the turret in the Warthog is what I'm really thinking about). There was also a plot, with a couple of surprises. I also particularly enjoyed the "mad dash" Warthog ride at the end - the best ending of any of the Halo games.
Now it's true that a theme of all the Halo games has been fight across a level, then turn around and fight back across it - but let's cut them some slack here, the levels were pretty nicely designed (you've picked the weakest) and there was a lot of variation in both what the player had to do, and the level design.
Halo has influenced FPS design, the original wasn't perfect, the multiplayer was very lacking for example, but a very good game indeed.
Well one of the problems with many new phones is they don't actually do the "talking" part all that well. However, as long as the "talking" part is OK I'm coming around of the other features. I ALWAYS have my phone with me, now I don't always have it switched on - but it's a constant companion (rather like a wristwatch used to be).
So given that below a certain size it becomes hard to talk on (the buttons get too small, the screen too small ... you get the idea) it might as well do other stuff. For me, when I start to think like this, the very first thing that springs to mind is email, then the web. But eventually games come up, now I still want "talking" to work really well - but I am prepared to play games on it. Given this, I want games that are "quick" - I don't want to spend much time, things that take 5-10 mins OR things that can be interrupted (Chess?)
This is what I think Sony don't get - the PSP tries to reproduce the feel of playing a PS2 - but I don't want that on the move. If I'm out, then I don't want to sit and play something for more than at most 15 mins. I have a PSP and it totally misses the point (and I don't use it).
I do play Nintendo DS - but that satisfies my "5-10 mins" craving. I do sometimes play it in the evening sitting about, and then I might play for longer, but that's the exception, not the rule (Mario Kart often evokes this exception).
The Sony PSP fails for me, because:
1) The unit is too big
2) The controls suck
3) The games take too long to play
I don't have an iPhone - but if I did I'd probably play games on it. I think the iPad might eat Sony's lunch - it looks great for games.
I'm thinking of Pounds Sterling (UK money) as that's what I have in my pocket (though not much of it) the scruffy fiver I have here does indeed say "I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF FIVE Pounds" [sic]. Clearly our money is different to yours.
This is kind of the point I'm making, in game money IS NOT real money. If it is then I can create as much of it as I need (I'll get hyperinflation with my "JezDollars" but I just make more of them), a region that recognises my "JezDollars" as real currency is in serious economic trouble as I ram this up and dump these things buying up their local currency.
The South Koreans simply cannot understand simple economics, because if they did they'd never do this.
I suppose it's OK, if you can pay it with Linden Dollars.
I seriously don't see how this'll work. Real money has the "I promise to pay the bearer" (or similar) thingy, virtual currencies don't. This seems like a pretty huge difference, I don't think the South Koreans have properly thought about it. Imagine if I did pay my income tax with Linden Dollars... Do I only get virtual health care? (I'm a Brit... I realise in the US this isn't funny).
As long as I can't buy real things with my virtual money then it's not real money! As soon as I can, well then I guess it is (as long as the goods have title, I have to be able to resell them).
We've got Linux for that ;-)
Yes, you've breached the license - you're not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. You buy an Apple computer, modify it and sell that with Mac OS X installed then you're golden.
People actually do that, you can buy a "Mac tablet" that's a modified MacBook, all perfectly legal.
The section you're complaining about is ON THE BOX. The rest of the EULA is common practice, and well understood by buyers. It's long, but nothing is surprising. The EULA is available before purchase, and this is printed on the box (true you have to obtain the EULA but it details how to do that before purchase).
Honestly I can't believe you're trying to present this as Apple attempting to sell Mac OS X and hiding the fact you need a Mac to run it - nothing could be further from the truth!
If you're not an OEM you don't need to comply with the OEM license so sure, if you want to build a business buying laptops through retail and selling them secondhand on eBay with modifications to Windows there is nothing stopping you.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, if you're an OEM there are restrictions on what you can and can't do. You think this unfair?
Now forget the "I'm and OEM" nonsense and look at it from a customer's perspective again. You buy a laptop with Windows on it, and someone has modified Windows such that something you wanted to do with it doesn't work - happy? These legal bindings can protect customers as well.
You might feel differently if you had created the product! What you're doing (though I don't think you mean to) is stopping someone from being able to make money from their own work. Now you're probably going to hit back with "others can", but is that really true? Microsoft distort the whole market (and as far as you're concerned are as guilty) by their shear size. The market of operating systems is far from a level playing field.
EULAs are agreed to by buyers, under no duress, why is this wrong or immoral? You don't like them, fine don't agree with one then, nobody is forcing you. The fact is a lot of people view them as acceptable. Would the transaction be better without an EULA? Yes, lower prices would be nice too, but I accept that the ability of the vender to make a profit would be adversely impacted without the EULA, as I want to be able to do further business with the vender, then their solvency is worth something to me, hence I'll accept Apple's EULA. You can choose a different path.
People do sell modified Macs, Apple might not like it but it's allowed. All Apple are saying is Mac OS X can only be installed on a Mac, let's not lose sight of that. They don't have a monopoly, so there is no anti-trust, product tying is perfectly legal and acceptable. You don't **need** to run Mac OS X, there are alternatives in the market. If you want it, then you buy the machine that is allowed to run it, if that's not acceptable, then you buy an alternative (or legally obtain an alternative).
You can't compare Apple to Microsoft - Microsoft have a monopoly, often there is NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. The two aren't comparable.
Intel's actions here are clearly anti-trust, and on a par with those of Microsoft.
My point is that OEMs weren't free to install Linux on a subset of their products - that's the point!
We cannot know what would have happened without Microsoft, I suspect that we'd have a similar position to he one we have, just different faces. Probably Digital Research.
But it's right in the section you are quoting!!
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
You cannot modify the code without accepting the license! They let you run the software, but that's it! I'll agree it's pretty permissive, and I'll argue that the restrictions actually add value, but there is very little "clear air" between the two situations.
Further more the GPL is infectious, if I add a small amount of GPL code to a project then the whole thing becomes GPL. You're trying to draw a distinction between two sets of people: developers and users, why should this exist? They all use the software, the EULA isn't different, just more restrictive.
You don't like Apple's EULA, fine, don't run the software - but that doesn't make the idea of a EULA less valid. What if I wanted to write code and specify that I didn't want it to be used for military use, should I not be allowed to do that?!
You have the choice to ignore Apple and its products, that's fine, I can see that. I'd be worried if you didn't (I want alternatives to the Mac, just as I want alternatives to Windows). But I think on balance Apple make the industry richer, add to the ecosystem, as do Microsoft. I don't think ending their business models are in the interests of consumers. I do think Microsoft have too much power to be allowed to do whatever they want (and they've show that many times) but I don't think that of Apple. I also don't think Linux needs much help - it looks pretty self sustaining at this point. So in general I think EULAs are "OK", I've published code with them, and didn't feel any problem about that, you have the choice to not use the stuff if you find the terms unreasonable. This isn't the same as anti-trust, there are alternatives (sadly I've never created anything as successful as Windows).
I guess. Probably still be a lot harder to read though... Still seems like a transparent display isn't very practical, even if it is cool.
I'll tell you what, how about this from Apple's store on the page that sells Mac OS X:
"Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
They have this in bold type right on the page where you add it to the shopping cart - I think it's pretty clear.
Much of the OEM argument is about how they sought to control how OEMs were restricted from selling competitors products. They told PC makers that if they sold PCs with other operating systems they'd have to pay far higher prices for Windows, this throttled other offerings like BeOS before they had a chance.
Microsoft aren't the heroes of the PC revolution you think they are, if anyone is it's Compaq - they paid for the IBM BIOS to be reverse engineered, and that allowed the clone market to get started.
Microsoft have actually helped keep PC prices high - look at the portion of the PCs price that is in it's software - it has raised significantly.
I cannot know what the world would have been like without Microsoft, their OS has been such an integral part of the industry for so long it's impossible to know, but I do know they stifled competition as soon as they achieved dominance.
Do I hate Microsoft? Of course not! I don't like a great many things they've done, but they have also got a lot of things right. I have plenty of Microsoft product that I use all the time, both hardware and software - but I also know my history, and know that the regulator would be well advised to keep close tabs on them, they can be very naughty boys.
Err, the GPL does impose terms. Try putting GPL code into a device then selling it, not allowing anyone access to the code (no, don't - the FSF will come after you, and rightly so).
You're trying to make the GPL an exception - it isn't.
If Apple cannot enforce the EULA then Mac OS X cannot exist at its current price point. What Psystar tried to do was never going to work, win or lose the case.
We've seen lose - I won't go over it.
If they'd won then Apple's business model would have been sunk, and they'd have no alternative but to drop the Mac and raise the price of Mac OS X - a lot. It's questionable if Mac OS X could have survived (I'd suggest it probably wouldn't have). Whatever Psystar's business would have been destroyed.
Psystar was always a "lose-lose" proposition.
The only silver lining for Apple would have been Microsoft would have been exactly the same situation, but far less affected as they get much of their profit from Office.
I think this court case proves otherwise. And really, you want me to have to sign a contract when I buy software?!
As a Linux supporter I think your idea is dangerous in the extreme, how could the GPL work (in any practical way)?!!
I couldn't have put it better myself.
The other big difference was Microsoft telling OEMs they had to buy Windows for every computer they sold (no matter if it was supplied with Windows or not) and restricting what non-Microsoft OEM software could be loaded. Hardly paragons of the free market.
I'm not actually so sure, there is a bit of history of stuff getting dropped with no easy upgrade path...
But yes, as a general principal I guess I should have included it - didn't mean to scare all those Windows users ;-)
So a "sale" can have no strings attached? Really?!
Consider:
Only to be operated by trained operators
Must not be used to make an explosive device
Not to be administered to humans
Or even: for non-commercial purposes only