You have several good points there. You can divide and classify ideas and expressions differntly. But in doing so you fall into a paradox. You cannot have one without the other. This is inherent in what you yourself express. You have an idea that Katz is wrong, and you seek to express that idea. The expression of the idea is tied directly to the idea itself.
Take for instance the idea of taking of small, discrete sections of a irregular curve and adding them up to find out the mathematical properties of that curve. That's a great idea! It solves many problems. However, without a mode of expression that is so many words. Part of the idea and genius of calculus is the way in which it is expressed. The limit, the summation, the integral, and their associated symbols. Without the expressive part of the idea, it would be worthless. Just as expressions are without value if they have no idea behind them to express.
Think about it. If somebody owns the method of expression then they own the idea. You can only say something in so many ways, and if those ways are own by somebody else, then you have nothing left to say. That is the point here. Copyrights in the days of yore were designed to give the holder the means of control of the expressive portion and thereby control over the idea itself. Nowadays that method of control over ideas is eroding far quicker than many are comfortable with. And that is where the 'Net comes in.
With the 'Net we find more and different methods of expressing old ideas. Like going to a town square and listing to a performance of a play or musician. That was free then, and all you had to do was get there. Now we just download the performance we want to hear and enjoy it at home. The fact that several hundered years seperates the two is where the problem comes in.
This is not entirely true...many more people took it upon themselve to try and represent the public at large in their comments. For example there is this set of comments from the The American Library Assoc. et. al. who attempt to bring to light that 65% of american house holds use libraries for some of thier information gathering. While the public at large themselves did not try, nor really knew that they could, comment about the law in question, many organizations were well aware and did post. All is not lost, nor the battle even begun. Be patient. This is not over yet.
The dark side is that there is little to no security whatsoever in the design. Currently "security" exists as a rotating frequency from host to host. This and the 10 meter range on the trasmission is supposed to keep listening down. I think that once enough people get these the frequency hopping routine is going to be broken as easily as the same for cell phones. However, it being an "open" architecture one could impliment their own encryption between hosts that does not currently exist. Personally I would like to see the use of the same wireless system that the NFL uses to talk between coaches and players. They supposedly have the frequency hopping like BlueTooth, but they have some sort of encryption chip that keeps chaging between transmissions. ESPN has talked about it before and I can't find the like again. Damn.
These kinds of battles, ideaological ones, can never be fair. We live in a world that is measured in "mindshare" so when it comes down to a battle of ideas on what is "right" and what is "wrong" fairness doesn't begin to be included into the equation. Those who are waging the battle, fighting the ideaological wars, don't want to get bogged down in complicated ideas like fairness. They want only one thing: The win. We need to remember that history is written by the victors. When, and if, censorware and censorship in general get worked out to any kind of conclusion the side that has won is going to be saying what they will about the side that loss. For the good or ill what is considered fair will take place at that point and not before.
Okay, seeing as nobody actually knows what's going on with how the computers are going to be purchased, I thought I would enlighten people.
My Girlfriend's dad works for Ford in KC and was telling me about all of this over Christmas break. Its been in the works (at least in KC) for a couple of years and this is what is going to happen: Every year, each Ford employee due to union contracts get a certain amount of money to be spent upon educational persuits. Most of the time this lets employees to go to a local community college and get a few classes in each year. The money that would be used this year (and I think next year too) will instead be spent on the computers and the associated internet access. The only thing that Ford is actually going to own here is the contract that is getting the employee's computers at the incredibly massive discount. At no point will Ford or the union is going own the computers! This is money that has already been set aside for the empolyees that is being spent by the employees.
I cannot in any sense of honesty say that I have ever liked the way Macs look. The iMac personally gives me nightmares. But this, these screenshots, are going to forever frighten me.
Rare in that potentially few people could know it. However, I personally believe that this would only happen when dealing with raw info/data comming from a research body. If the Internet teaches anybody anything it teaches that once one person knows something, then many people know it. This is the basis of that suggestion. If somebody were to claim an exclusive knowledge of something, then it would be their burden to prove that only they know it. In this sort of atmosphere, having an artifical scarcity of information / knowledge / data would be hard to create.
I recently did a report for a tech-english class last semester. It ended up being about ownership and the Internet, most specificly who it is that owns the whole shebang. Not an easy project, and I did not end up finding what I thought I would find when I first started. The paper overall ended up being one on copyrights. So I'll say the same thing that I ended up saying in that paper.
You cannot treat the digital world the same as the print world.
It just cannot be done. Everybody that reads slashdot with any frequency knows the lunacy of walking down that path. So let me take that argument and apply it here.
You cannot treat an online database the same as one you might have as hardcopy database (read:propritary, closed, or rolerdex on a desk) in an office. You cannot charge access to it in the same manner. You cannot oversee the users in the same manner. And most importantly, you cannot expect people to value the data that is stored therein the same.
With that said how can anybody expect to make a profit by putting such a beast online. I have two thoughts.
#1: Do as the search engines do. Find some other way to profit. I have no idea what product Yahoo makes, but for some reason people invest in it, and somebody, somewhere is making money. It has been done once, and it can be done again.
#2: Do it ebay style. Auction the info off. Highest bidder gets the ability to negotiate a use license. No cost to find out if it exists, just a cost to read it. The more people demand rare info, the higher the price goes up.
Over at ABCNews (beware, its an article from CNet news, and will spawn some java your way) they're talking about Intel some more and their current "accelerated" roadmap for 2000. The highlights being that there will be a 1 GHz by Q4. Does this make no sense whatsoever to anybody other than me? AMD has a chip out that is a generation ahead of the PIII, and they're preparing to simply up the speed-rating? And not soon, but several months from now!? Admitily, the article does mention that Intel wants to "diversify into other markets". But it sounds like Intel wants to loose now.
What does Intel think they're doing here? A release of yet another chip based upon their out-dated and out-preformed PPro core? Who are they kidding? It's not as if the new design actually came close to touching what AMD has in the Athlon, nor does it prove that this revamp is actually worth that much to an everyday user. Okay, some of what they did to the chip to speed things up are cool, but IMHO, these are ideas that should have been floating around for some time now. The pushing of the overclocking is cool, but again, this proves little to nothing when comparing it to anything outside of Intel chips.
What I read in the article does not just fly in the face of Thermo, but also thumbs it's nose at it as it does the flying. Look, I don't care if he says that it's suppose to work at the atomic or macro level, rules are rules, and this is why people have not been able to do things like produce repeatable demostrations of cold fusion.
With my opinion aside, the rhetoric of the article is good. The writer simply presents the ideas and arguments that were prsented to him, and lets the reader deside on thier own, with a slight hint twords the crazy people in this case. The rhetoric of the opins given, are quite different. Mills arguments apear to be mostly using techspeak with only limited understanding. This can in some sense be forgive, seeing as the background is more biological based and not in "pure" physics. The arguments give against Mills are better founded in who has given them. Most notably by people that have tried to debunk such people before. So, in the end, what time that is given to the detractors is much more effective and helps to bring a good balance to the article. Read it, you'll be surprised, but take a bit of salt with you.
What arguments have you used to try and persuade people that censorware is not an acceptable answer to whatever problem they are currently having with the world at large?
I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'". He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before.
There is more than one way to view "mental" health. More than one post here has been about how seeing, acting, and by other words, existing differently is not the same as having a mental disorder. But what is a mental disorder? Can you really point to your head and say that you have a diseased mind? The real question here is, "What consitiutes a mental disorder?".
You're missing the whole point to what Herbert was talking about in the first place. Dune was never meant IMHO to be the Sci-Fi people believe it to be. For any careful reader it is more of an analysis of what Government really is and where Governments have room to move in. I ended up reading all 6 books in one 3 month streach a few years ago, and for the most part I never once was aware of Herbert trying to push any technological view of anything. He really goes out of his way to keep technology as far out of the turning points of his stories as one could possibly write. Hence, I believe the problems you have with the stories themselves. These are stories that are suppose to be about ruling a large population, and the reactions that people ruling have. If you have the time and paitence, re-read the books, but do so with a different mindset. Read them instead in the same way as you would read The Prince. Read it in the same way as you would watch Citizen Kane. This is what the stories are really about. Not Sci-Fi.
At one time, that is. Way back when, in the good old days there was this philosopher, who lived in France. And he was a good little philosopher who love his church, who was faithful, and who hated the infidels that the church hated. So much in fact that he was able to reason that the up and coming revolution that was geometry was cooked up by the devil to poison young minds and would be the end of civilization that we know of. And if we look father and father back in human history we can run across another philosopher who thought that the new art of writing was going to be the downfall of civilization as we know it. No more were students going to "know" a subject. They would be able to "look it up" in a book, and not have to rely upon their memories. This in turn would lead them to be corrupted, because their minds were not occupied with remembering things. And it would also lead to the student having a "softer" mind, because again, they would not be required to memorize things.
The first philosopher was our friend, St. Augustine. The second was Socrates.
Even more recently, such and such technology was said to corrupt us. Look only to when the neo-utopian movement of the 18th and 19th centuries occured. Right along with the rise of the industrial age. We surived that. We learned to pass laws and regulations that restricted certain unethical and dangerous practices that were at one time very common. We got so good at the industrial stuff, that we advanced it, shedding great gobs of useless ideas and practices and it became ubiquitous! Otherwise you couldn't drive to work. Otherwise you couldn't build your house. Otherwise, you could not function. We will survive this. We will make this work for us. We have before and we will do it again.
I think we all might be missing a small and subtle point in this debate. I run a lab on my college campus, and see this quite a bit, too. Most of the time that printing is done for non-classwork is email, most of that comming not from our campus email system, but from web-based email like Hotmail. That aside, I have often wondered why it was that the other students would want to print their email. Granted some of it was humor, some of it was classwork, but a large majority of it was personal. Some of it really, really personal. But also, the email mostly printed out, was not email sent to them, but the responses to email as well as email originated by them. I have also found myself printing out draft copies of stories and letter I have to submit for class and pleasure. Things that most definately did not need to be printed. I think, therefore, that part of the reason that so many people want to print things out, is to be seen in print. Think about it, how often would you like to see something like a byline, in print, next to your name? Look at email. It has a byline right next to your name.
Its good news to see yet another company want to support a Linux product. However, I see two main problems with doing that for a compiler. I have my doubts that it would be an open-source compiler. This is a real company seeking real profits. So our ability to use this compiler as we will is going to be severly limited to what the designers think we should be using it for. Second, IMHO, CBuilder is not that great of a product. I have been trying to use CB4-Standard for my class work this semester and it has the most counter-intuitive interface that I have had the pleasure of getting fustrated at outside of any M$ product on the market. More often than not, the "reqirements" for CB4 to make and run my program get in the way of the actual design of what I want. It is not for the faint of heart users.
to the recent news about ESCHELON or whatever that name of the monitoring system that Austrailia came out with just a few weeks ago? Are they trying to legitimize everything that they have already done, or are we looking at the attempt to get into a second round of systems that people "know" about?
It has been shown that throughout all history that the more any state (govt) tries to repress or ignore a certain set of ideas, that it eventually comes back to bite them in the butt. Namely in the form of a revolution. With that said, maybe this company and its software are the first steps twords that. This is a shoddy product that is used by many different branches of govt. Cities, counties, and in at least one case, a state itself. Slowly, and ever so, people are begining to realize what is happening, and when/if that critical mass of people do wake up, there will be trouble.
Is the IM's really any faster than normal email? How much time and trouble are spent writing little messages back and forth that could actually be used in something productive? Is this really something that the OS movement would want to be associated with when it really comes down to nothing more than just another email system that sits on your desktop and beeps loudly when you get a new message.
When Sony announced its plans for the upcomming playstation2, oh, back in March or April, that it was going to use a Linux-based kernel nestled in their hardware? Apparently when Sony was in the initial design stages it went to their hardware and software people and gave them a servy to see what they wanted to use. It came back with some interresting results. The most notable is the hyper-high end graphics hardware (what? ~30 Mil poly a second) and the fact that people wanted to use C/C++ in a very hardware-intense inviroment (AKA Linux). So, sit back, crank up your own machine and get ready to do some serious porting, because the line between the PC and Playstation just got seriously blurred.
Slashdot Mirror
You have several good points there. You can divide and classify ideas and expressions differntly. But in doing so you fall into a paradox. You cannot have one without the other. This is inherent in what you yourself express. You have an idea that Katz is wrong, and you seek to express that idea. The expression of the idea is tied directly to the idea itself.
Take for instance the idea of taking of small, discrete sections of a irregular curve and adding them up to find out the mathematical properties of that curve. That's a great idea! It solves many problems. However, without a mode of expression that is so many words. Part of the idea and genius of calculus is the way in which it is expressed. The limit, the summation, the integral, and their associated symbols. Without the expressive part of the idea, it would be worthless. Just as expressions are without value if they have no idea behind them to express.
Think about it. If somebody owns the method of expression then they own the idea. You can only say something in so many ways, and if those ways are own by somebody else, then you have nothing left to say. That is the point here. Copyrights in the days of yore were designed to give the holder the means of control of the expressive portion and thereby control over the idea itself. Nowadays that method of control over ideas is eroding far quicker than many are comfortable with. And that is where the 'Net comes in.
With the 'Net we find more and different methods of expressing old ideas. Like going to a town square and listing to a performance of a play or musician. That was free then, and all you had to do was get there. Now we just download the performance we want to hear and enjoy it at home. The fact that several hundered years seperates the two is where the problem comes in.
This is not entirely true...many more people took it upon themselve to try and represent the public at large in their comments. For example there is this set of comments from the The American Library Assoc. et. al. who attempt to bring to light that 65% of american house holds use libraries for some of thier information gathering. While the public at large themselves did not try, nor really knew that they could, comment about the law in question, many organizations were well aware and did post. All is not lost, nor the battle even begun. Be patient. This is not over yet.
The dark side is that there is little to no security whatsoever in the design. Currently "security" exists as a rotating frequency from host to host. This and the 10 meter range on the trasmission is supposed to keep listening down. I think that once enough people get these the frequency hopping routine is going to be broken as easily as the same for cell phones. However, it being an "open" architecture one could impliment their own encryption between hosts that does not currently exist.
Personally I would like to see the use of the same wireless system that the NFL uses to talk between coaches and players. They supposedly have the frequency hopping like BlueTooth, but they have some sort of encryption chip that keeps chaging between transmissions. ESPN has talked about it before and I can't find the like again. Damn.
These kinds of battles, ideaological ones, can never be fair. We live in a world that is measured in "mindshare" so when it comes down to a battle of ideas on what is "right" and what is "wrong" fairness doesn't begin to be included into the equation. Those who are waging the battle, fighting the ideaological wars, don't want to get bogged down in complicated ideas like fairness. They want only one thing: The win. We need to remember that history is written by the victors. When, and if, censorware and censorship in general get worked out to any kind of conclusion the side that has won is going to be saying what they will about the side that loss. For the good or ill what is considered fair will take place at that point and not before.
Okay, seeing as nobody actually knows what's going on with how the computers are going to be purchased, I thought I would enlighten people.
My Girlfriend's dad works for Ford in KC and was telling me about all of this over Christmas break. Its been in the works (at least in KC) for a couple of years and this is what is going to happen: Every year, each Ford employee due to union contracts get a certain amount of money to be spent upon educational persuits. Most of the time this lets employees to go to a local community college and get a few classes in each year. The money that would be used this year (and I think next year too) will instead be spent on the computers and the associated internet access. The only thing that Ford is actually going to own here is the contract that is getting the employee's computers at the incredibly massive discount. At no point will Ford or the union is going own the computers! This is money that has already been set aside for the empolyees that is being spent by the employees.
Okay, hope the clears up a few things.
I cannot in any sense of honesty say that I have ever liked the way Macs look. The iMac personally gives me nightmares. But this, these screenshots, are going to forever frighten me.
Rare in that potentially few people could know it. However, I personally believe that this would only happen when dealing with raw info/data comming from a research body. If the Internet teaches anybody anything it teaches that once one person knows something, then many people know it. This is the basis of that suggestion. If somebody were to claim an exclusive knowledge of something, then it would be their burden to prove that only they know it. In this sort of atmosphere, having an artifical scarcity of information / knowledge / data would be hard to create.
I recently did a report for a tech-english class last semester. It ended up being about ownership and the Internet, most specificly who it is that owns the whole shebang. Not an easy project, and I did not end up finding what I thought I would find when I first started. The paper overall ended up being one on copyrights. So I'll say the same thing that I ended up saying in that paper.
You cannot treat the digital world the same as the print world.
It just cannot be done. Everybody that reads slashdot with any frequency knows the lunacy of walking down that path. So let me take that argument and apply it here.
You cannot treat an online database the same as one you might have as hardcopy database (read:propritary, closed, or rolerdex on a desk) in an office. You cannot charge access to it in the same manner. You cannot oversee the users in the same manner. And most importantly, you cannot expect people to value the data that is stored therein the same.
With that said how can anybody expect to make a profit by putting such a beast online. I have two thoughts.
#1: Do as the search engines do. Find some other way to profit. I have no idea what product Yahoo makes, but for some reason people invest in it, and somebody, somewhere is making money. It has been done once, and it can be done again.
#2: Do it ebay style. Auction the info off. Highest bidder gets the ability to negotiate a use license. No cost to find out if it exists, just a cost to read it. The more people demand rare info, the higher the price goes up.
Any body else go a suggestion?
This is just adding to my comment above.
Over at ABCNews (beware, its an article from CNet news, and will spawn some java your way) they're talking about Intel some more and their current "accelerated" roadmap for 2000. The highlights being that there will be a 1 GHz by Q4. Does this make no sense whatsoever to anybody other than me? AMD has a chip out that is a generation ahead of the PIII, and they're preparing to simply up the speed-rating? And not soon, but several months from now!? Admitily, the article does mention that Intel wants to "diversify into other markets". But it sounds like Intel wants to loose now.
What does Intel think they're doing here?
A release of yet another chip based upon their out-dated and out-preformed PPro core? Who are they kidding?
It's not as if the new design actually came close to touching what AMD has in the Athlon, nor does it prove that this revamp is actually worth that much to an everyday user. Okay, some of what they did to the chip to speed things up are cool, but IMHO, these are ideas that should have been floating around for some time now. The pushing of the overclocking is cool, but again, this proves little to nothing when comparing it to anything outside of Intel chips.
As explained to me by my physics prof:
1)You can't win
2)You can't try
3)You'll always loose.
What I read in the article does not just fly in the face of Thermo, but also thumbs it's nose at it as it does the flying. Look, I don't care if he says that it's suppose to work at the atomic or macro level, rules are rules, and this is why people have not been able to do things like produce repeatable demostrations of cold fusion.
With my opinion aside, the rhetoric of the article is good. The writer simply presents the ideas and arguments that were prsented to him, and lets the reader deside on thier own, with a slight hint twords the crazy people in this case. The rhetoric of the opins given, are quite different. Mills arguments apear to be mostly using techspeak with only limited understanding. This can in some sense be forgive, seeing as the background is more biological based and not in "pure" physics. The arguments give against Mills are better founded in who has given them. Most notably by people that have tried to debunk such people before. So, in the end, what time that is given to the detractors is much more effective and helps to bring a good balance to the article.
Read it, you'll be surprised, but take a bit of salt with you.
What arguments have you used to try and persuade people that censorware is not an acceptable answer to whatever problem they are currently having with the world at large?
I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'". He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before.
There is more than one way to view "mental" health. More than one post here has been about how seeing, acting, and by other words, existing differently is not the same as having a mental disorder. But what is a mental disorder? Can you really point to your head and say that you have a diseased mind? The real question here is, "What consitiutes a mental disorder?".
For more on the subject check out:
This site about the myth of mental disease
You're missing the whole point to what Herbert was talking about in the first place. Dune was never meant IMHO to be the Sci-Fi people believe it to be. For any careful reader it is more of an analysis of what Government really is and where Governments have room to move in.
I ended up reading all 6 books in one 3 month streach a few years ago, and for the most part I never once was aware of Herbert trying to push any technological view of anything. He really goes out of his way to keep technology as far out of the turning points of his stories as one could possibly write. Hence, I believe the problems you have with the stories themselves. These are stories that are suppose to be about ruling a large population, and the reactions that people ruling have.
If you have the time and paitence, re-read the books, but do so with a different mindset. Read them instead in the same way as you would read The Prince. Read it in the same way as you would watch Citizen Kane. This is what the stories are really about. Not Sci-Fi.
At one time, that is. Way back when, in the good old days there was this philosopher, who lived in France. And he was a good little philosopher who love his church, who was faithful, and who hated the infidels that the church hated. So much in fact that he was able to reason that the up and coming revolution that was geometry was cooked up by the devil to poison young minds and would be the end of civilization that we know of. And if we look father and father back in human history we can run across another philosopher who thought that the new art of writing was going to be the downfall of civilization as we know it. No more were students going to "know" a subject. They would be able to "look it up" in a book, and not have to rely upon their memories. This in turn would lead them to be corrupted, because their minds were not occupied with remembering things. And it would also lead to the student having a "softer" mind, because again, they would not be required to memorize things.
The first philosopher was our friend, St. Augustine.
The second was Socrates.
Even more recently, such and such technology was said to corrupt us. Look only to when the neo-utopian movement of the 18th and 19th centuries occured. Right along with the rise of the industrial age. We surived that. We learned to pass laws and regulations that restricted certain unethical and dangerous practices that were at one time very common. We got so good at the industrial stuff, that we advanced it, shedding great gobs of useless ideas and practices and it became ubiquitous! Otherwise you couldn't drive to work. Otherwise you couldn't build your house. Otherwise, you could not function.
We will survive this. We will make this work for us. We have before and we will do it again.
I think we all might be missing a small and subtle point in this debate. I run a lab on my college campus, and see this quite a bit, too. Most of the time that printing is done for non-classwork is email, most of that comming not from our campus email system, but from web-based email like Hotmail.
That aside, I have often wondered why it was that the other students would want to print their email. Granted some of it was humor, some of it was classwork, but a large majority of it was personal. Some of it really, really personal. But also, the email mostly printed out, was not email sent to them, but the responses to email as well as email originated by them.
I have also found myself printing out draft copies of stories and letter I have to submit for class and pleasure. Things that most definately did not need to be printed.
I think, therefore, that part of the reason that so many people want to print things out, is to be seen in print. Think about it, how often would you like to see something like a byline, in print, next to your name? Look at email. It has a byline right next to your name.
Its good news to see yet another company want to support a Linux product. However, I see two main problems with doing that for a compiler. I have my doubts that it would be an open-source compiler. This is a real company seeking real profits. So our ability to use this compiler as we will is going to be severly limited to what the designers think we should be using it for. Second, IMHO, CBuilder is not that great of a product. I have been trying to use CB4-Standard for my class work this semester and it has the most counter-intuitive interface that I have had the pleasure of getting fustrated at outside of any M$ product on the market. More often than not, the "reqirements" for CB4 to make and run my program get in the way of the actual design of what I want. It is not for the faint of heart users.
to the recent news about ESCHELON or whatever that name of the monitoring system that Austrailia came out with just a few weeks ago? Are they trying to legitimize everything that they have already done, or are we looking at the attempt to get into a second round of systems that people "know" about?
It has been shown that throughout all history that the more any state (govt) tries to repress or ignore a certain set of ideas, that it eventually comes back to bite them in the butt. Namely in the form of a revolution. With that said, maybe this company and its software are the first steps twords that. This is a shoddy product that is used by many different branches of govt. Cities, counties, and in at least one case, a state itself. Slowly, and ever so, people are begining to realize what is happening, and when/if that critical mass of people do wake up, there will be trouble.
Is the IM's really any faster than normal email?
How much time and trouble are spent writing little messages back and forth that could actually be used in something productive?
Is this really something that the OS movement would want to be associated with when it really comes down to nothing more than just another email system that sits on your desktop and beeps loudly when you get a new message.
When Sony announced its plans for the upcomming playstation2, oh, back in March or April, that it was going to use a Linux-based kernel nestled in their hardware? Apparently when Sony was in the initial design stages it went to their hardware and software people and gave them a servy to see what they wanted to use. It came back with some interresting results. The most notable is the hyper-high end graphics hardware (what? ~30 Mil poly a second) and the fact that people wanted to use C/C++ in a very hardware-intense inviroment (AKA Linux).
So, sit back, crank up your own machine and get ready to do some serious porting, because the line between the PC and Playstation just got seriously blurred.