Why is it people always have the tendancy to take great works of art and try to read way too much into it? It's like the theory that the Mona Lisa is really an expression of DaVinci's female/homosexual side... What these people are doing is at best akin to self-fulfilling prophecies...
"So what are those claims? Alot of it makes good sense. For instance, Dave Bowman relates to Ulysses (a reknowned bowman in the myths)."
While I agree that there is a lot in common between A Space Odyssey and Homer's original (just look at the title!), I think this is taking it a little too far. If Clarke really wanted to do what this author is suggesting, why not call him "Dave Archer?"
"These letters, like the last nine in Frank Poole, can be rearranged to form an anagram. In this case, the anagram is "No Meat." A wooden horse has no meat on its skeletal framework."
Yeah, so? It also spells "toe man" and "no team" and "M... neato." Besides, the Trojan Horse had a lot of meat (in the form of the Greeks inside of it).
"But why the hexagons? Why not circles or squares or nothing?"
Because curved surfaces aren't justified, while using a cube would result in something that looks a little too much like a Tinker Toy.
"The rear-end hexagons are bathroom tiles! They symbolize bathrooms."
Exactly how far up his own ass did he have to reach to pull this one out? This makes those goat sex pics look tame in comparison!
"Hal-Discovery has three bathrooms, one for each mouth"
Um... how do you figure three? Is this "the new math?" And HAL is no more Discovery than Windows is my computer.
"It reminds us how good human minds, especially smart ones, are at finding patterns in crazy shit."
So, what you're saying is that this book is an example of how far computing needs to go before it catches up with human pattern-recognition skills?
"Wheat has the premise that Kubrick was so wicked smart that these long strings of meaning are not only possible, they are a sure thing."
Then perhaps he should sit down and write his next few books on "Dr. Strangelove," "Full Metal Jacket," and "Eyes Wide Shut." If Kubrik was half as smart as the author suggests, then he might be able to find the meaning of life in these movies.
"You also come away with the sense that Wheat is a pretty smart man himself."
Using big words makes you smart. Right. Or should I say "Utilizing unwieldy verbage demonstrates one's superior intellect?"
"Secondly, this technology could also be used in our schools and libraries to ensure that objectionable content"
Um... last I checked, we were talking about encrypting video between the computer and the monitor, not some new kind of web filter. SLIGHT difference.
"such as sexually explicit images"
Darn that Gray's Anatomy...
"or anti-religious propaganda"
... such as the works of Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson...
"It is difficult to imagine any law-abiding sane adult arguing against this technology."
Maybe because you never considered that the companies that write Linux or BSD or non-Windows 9x drivers for their own hardware is still in the minority? Maybe because you've never considered that this is a heartbeat away from charging you for driver upgrades? ("Buy our monitor and get a free one-year subscription to our driver update service, a $29.95 value!") Maybe because you think that federal wiretap laws are supposed to prevent you from tapping into your own wires?
And, last but not least, maybe you haven't considered that this may kill off computer hobbyists the same way the fuel injector killed off a big chunk of driveway mechanics. It's amazing how willingly you'll pay for that expensive "premium" hardware service and parts when do-it-yourself won't let you unlock the encryption.
After paying my college of choice thousands of dollars in tuition, they still feel the need to sell my e-mail address to advertisers. Why would I want to keep it?
What else would you call something that infringes upon an artist's/publisher's right to control distribution?
"US Minister of Culture (doubtful that anyone like that exists)"
Why you'd want to put your culture in the hands of the government is beyond me, especially since there's way too many cultures in the US to keep track of. I mean, I suppose it's useful in northern and central European countries, where 98% of the population is pure aryan already, but...
"So I take it the fact that the XBox design team toured the States, visiting gamers' homes, getting input on what gamers want, is just a copycat move, that every company does that during the research and design period?"
First off, there's no evidence that they've listened to the gamers yet. Secondly, I do recall those "Player's Poll" contests they had in the old issues of Nintendo Power. I ended my subscription somewhere around their fifth anniversary, so I don't know if they still do it, but...
Besides, if you spend too much time trying to listen to gamers' suggestions and not enough time on being creative, you're going to end up with recycled games. There's only so many iterations of Mortal Kombat you can make before it gets old. Nobody was asking for FPSes until somebody got creative and made Wolfenstein.
"(Flight Simulator, Age of Empires series, the * Madness games, Mechwarrior games, and more)"
No, for those I'm saying "just more of the same."
Microsoft Flight Simulator: flight simulators have been around almost as long as there have been computer games. Microsoft saw how well Chuck Yeager's game was doing, and said "We can do that..."
Age of Empires: Microsoft didn't have their AoE "bright idea" until after Blizzard's big success with the WarCraft series.
I'm not familiar with the Madness games
MechWarrior 3 & 4: Microsoft only bought the rights to the BattleTech line after the success of MechWarriors 1 & 2, Activision titles. I also have the feeling that FASA got screwed over somewhere in that deal, too...
All I'm seeing here is the trend of Microsoft trying to get into some pre-existing action. If Microsoft REALLY knew what gamers wanted, they wouldn't have to play catch-up to publish their own works in a pre-existing genre.
"And I guess the 150+ third-party developers that have already signed on (including big names, like Sega, Capcom, and Konami from the console side, and Epic and id from the PC side) are just marketing?"
All the companies you named (except maybe Epic) are signing on for all three systems. It makes business sense to spread the love, making sure you have as wide a customer base as possible. Heck, even id has seen its titles on the SNES and N64.
From where I sit, the majority of new gaming innovation will take place on either the GameCube or the PS2. Xbox players will just be getting sloppy seconds from Microsoft Publishing as new territory is explored on the other two systems. It doesn't matter how much "better" your new maze game is, it still ain't Pac-Man.
Yes, Goldeneye is a great game (gotta love the sniper scope!), but it's still more of an exception rather than a rule. Maybe that's changing as business-types realize that the industry is making more money than movies, but it's still a bit of a slow process.
"Also, most of the people that I know who play games have played both starcraft and AoE, the second when we all got tired of the first, and liked both about as much."
However, being a "me, too!" game publisher doesn't do much to sell hardware or make a name for yourself as an industry. You've pointed out that most of the people you know played StarCraft first, and then moved on to AoE. There are also the people who bought StarCraft and didn't move on to AoE. AoE didn't really do anything for the genre, no new innovations, no immersive universe, just... well... more of the same.
I can't help but feel that if Microsoft were making games 20 years ago, they'd do nothing but churn out Pac-Man and Donkey Kong clones. And just like all the companies that did nothing but "me, too!" games, they'll be forgotten about after five years or so.
"Don't let the poor quality of microsoft's OS division close your mind entirely..."
The main problem with their OS division is the same as the main problem as all their other divisions: They are about money first, and everything else is just details. They don't want to be innovative, they don't want to push the envelope, they just want to continue getting a steady income from churning out 31 flavors of vanilla.
Nintendo is dedicated to what they do. They're all about the games, the whole games, and nothing but the games, and that's been their mantra for the past century or so (literally). Sony knows they don't know jack about games, so they whore themselves out to others that do (Squaresoft). Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing much of either.
It sounds like the same tactic consoles used in the 8- and 16-bit console wars, where companies published for either Nintendo or Sega, but not both (at least not until the world is ready for the next generation of consoles). However, it only works for you if you can entice publishers to sign the restrictive paperwork. If you don't have the best-selling system around, there's no reason for a publisher to want to tie their fate to you, unless there's some sort of "master plan" going on (like Squaresoft signing on for the PlayStation but not the Saturn).
So, either this means one of two things. Either Microsoft has a "master plan" that convinced the movie people to let them have exclusive rights to the name, or this is just another case of the movie publishers knowing nothing about the game industry, and letting the first company to come along have the rights (like so many movie-based games). Looking at how Microsoft relies more on marketing, hype, and copy-cat tactics than actually trying to figure out what the gamers want, I'm guessing it's the second one.:)
"Exclusivity is a huge thing in the gaming world . . . especially for a game that will almost certainly be a blockbuster."
I can't think of any record-setting games that were based on a movie. Most of the best-sellers are original material, such as Final Fantasy and Zelda.
"and the XBox tech looks pretty good"
Yeah, no other system runs PhotoShop quite as well...
"Microsoft has played the gaming business better than anyone else ever has."
Like hell they have! When my friends and I have a LAN party, it's StarCraft we're playing, not AoE.
"Microsoft has decided they want to break into this market, and they're well on their way to domination."
I'm sorry, but I've yet to see anything from Microsoft that suggests that they'll be able to top Nintendo. So far, everything I've seen in the way of products for the Xbox seem rather wishy-washy at best, nothing really solid. At the very least, I don't see them being able to compete with a company that has been publishing sold and record-breaking hits from Donkey Kong to Zelda. If anything, Nintendo is gearing to seriously mess with Microsoft's turf with the new Metroid.
"The XBox will have a huge selection of software when it arrives"
A "quantity over quality" kind of person, I see... And what makes you think either GameCube or PS2 aren't going to have equally large libraries?
By all accounts, it seems that the majority of software publishers for next-generation game consoles will be "hardware agnostic," where most of the games you'll see will be available for Nintendo and Sony as well as Microsoft. Generally speaking, Sony's first- and second-party publishers are crap, and their last system relied almost exclusively on third-party software. The PS2 seems to be more of the same for Sony, gambling that Squaresoft will save them again (which I personally doubt).
Nintendo, on the other hand, has extremely strong first- and second-party developers, so strong that in-house development is practically the sole reason the N64 managed to stay afloat against competition from Sony. The only software publisher that even comes close to Nintendo as far as variety and great games are concerned is Sega (though Squaresoft tries to pretend that it doesn't just make RPGs). This looks to be a major asset to Nintendo in the next console war, because they'll be the only one with great exclusive games.
So, is the fact that Microsoft went out and bagged exclusive rights for The Matrix a sign that they're seriously concerned about GameCube's ability to sell on exclusive games alone?
More importantly, will a Matrix game written by Microsoft be able to stand up against Zelda, Metroid, Perfect Dark, etc, or will Microsoft just be another poser to get smacked down hard like so many before? (After the PhotoShop debacle, I'm tempted to think the latter).
Oh, and one more thing: Does the fact that Microsoft now needs to ship out patches for a bug in UltimateTV an example of Microsoft's (lack of) ability to build a solid set-top box?
"1. Why and how is a computer program expressive speech? What does it express? 2600's lawyers are entirely familiar with Touretzky's Gallery, so forget about those. Assume you have some C or perl staring at you, any random block of code in any random print-out. What does it express? Why should that code be protected expression?"
The problem is that coding isn't expressive in the same way as, say, poetry. You can't easily express emotion in Java. I'd say the closest "real world" analog to coding is a cookbook: Add two integers and a float, and multiply vigorously. It's a series of instructions to an audience (chef, computer) with the intent of re-creating a particular outcome (soufle, screensaver).
It's hard for the outsider to see that pure code can be expressive because they don't have the ability to interpret pure code to any meaningful degree. A master chef or a master programmer can look at the set of instructions and understand exactly what the author is trying to reproduce without actually following the instructions, but Joe User is forced to actually bake that cake or run that code to get the full effect.
Anyway, moving right along, what is "expressiveness," anyway? I'm pretty sure that something is labelled "expressive" if it can incite a reaction from the intended audience. If you laugh at a comedy or cry at a tragedy, the author has done their job of expressing themselves through their words. Then it could be said that code is doubly-expressive. It gets a very specific reaction from the silicon-based audience (display X shade of blue for Y seconds), and then the computer's reaction incites another reaction in the computer's operator ("Woah, nice color effect!").
All in all, I'd say that code itself isn't as expressive as code + computer, but that doesn't mean that an experienced person can't understand and be moved by computer-speak by itself. A cookbook in German isn't very effective unless you have something (er... someone) that can understand and interpret the language. That doesn't mean that it isn't expressive to those that can understand German, nor does the fact that non-German-speakers can't understand it mean it's not speech.
"2. What examples of fair uses absolutely require access to the work in its most modern, digital, uncorrupted, un-macrovisioned form? The only one that jumped out at me is making a backup copy in case the original is destroyed. But perhaps there are others."
Well... all I can think of is for conducting a study that would inherently destroy the original. If you want to study specific intricate details of, say, the Mona Lisa, it would be best to do these studies on a copy (as exact a copy as possible) than to do it on the real thing. Different kinds of studies will require different degrees of exactness, but the most desirable copy is one that is exact in every detail.
You imply that you think I intended those numbers to be the same. I didn't. From what I've seen, the more items you sell, the lower the likelyhood of someone returning that item is. Some people don't return things no matter what.
"If I sold a hundred units and one was returned, I'd be concerned about that 1%, but not upset. If I sold a million units and only 100 were returned, I'd be FSCKING ESTATIC that 0.0001% of the units were defective / not wanted."
Speaking of bad math, 100/1,000,000 = 0.0001 = 0.01%
"However, Sealand is a decommissioned, abandoned sea fortress."
... sitting in British waters, so any salvage operations and such would be covered by British laws.
"The Principality of Sealand was there first"
However, there doesn't seeem to be indication that the UK has ever recognized Sealand as a soverign country, and neither has any other government that I know of.
"Soverignty" is something decided upon by other countries as they decide to recognize one government's claims as "legitimate" over another's. It's why Stalin only got one seat in the UN General Assembly instead of the 15 or so he wanted, one seat for each individual Soviet republic. (Well, that and the fact that somebody pointed out that the US should get 48 by the same logic)
Or, for an example more relevant, in the 1860's the UK and France did not acknowledge that the Confederate States of America was actually an independent country, so they did not get (directly) involved with aiding the CSA during the war.
"Also, it's not exacttly kosher for them to do that; territorial waters reach out to only three miles."
According to this reference, they were bringing themselves up-to-date to the most current language in the Law of the Sea treaty from 1982. Though it has yet to be officially ratified by the UN as international law (at least when this web page was written), most countries (like the US) follow its guidelines of a 12 nautical mile limit to territorial seas.
"There's another boundary that reaches out to 12 miles, but it isn't territorial waters"
According to the aforementioned links, the UK's claims to territorial waters is indeed 12 nautical miles.
"the UK is pulling something silly"
Silly or not, this is something that has been hammered out by three UN conferences on the subject.
"The world could use a few places where people can flee oppression, and the established countries just aren't cutting it."
The only solution is to change copyright and patent laws, not try to violate them. By thumbing their nose at copyright laws and international treaties, they're running the risk of being labelled as pirates (the REAL kind, not the software variety). Most civilized nations don't take kindly to pirates. Hell, the first military action seen by the US after the revolution was sending in the USMC to shoot up a bunch of Lybian pirates. And where will HavenCo's "principles" be when the Brits decide that their platform makes for good long-range artillery practice?
"Just look at how many small speciality shops, that know their stuff and can offer great service, run into problems when Wal-Mart moves in and starts selling the same items they do."
I take it you've never had to return something to Wal-Mart. It's a remarkably easy process. Their customer support desk is right by the front door, return something for almost any reason, and they'll give you cash if you have a receipt, and exchanges without one. They operate under the philosphy of "keep them happy, and they'll keep spending their money here." They can afford to "lose" money on returns.
On the other hand, I know of several small shops I've been to where the guy behind the counter has an "us versus them" attitude towards their customers, where you have to prove that the problem is the fault of the store's, because they can't always afford to give you a refund.
It's true that there are some exceptions to both scenarios, the fact remains that the bigger the store and the more sales they have, the more they can afford better customer service. One return out of 100 hurts more than 100 returns out of a million.
Oh, and I forgot to mention one thing. Note that the FBI was suggesting that all encription require escrow keys, NOT that those keys be sent to the FBI by default. They don't want your keys, they want to have access to your keys when they need it (ie. after obtaining a search warrant). Even the FBI knows that two can keep a secret only if one is dead.
After all, Russia's broke, but they're still able to keep high-ranking moles in the US intelligence community on the payroll.
I'm not agreeing with the tactic, I'm just saying that it's been blown out of proportion.
Let's say we live in a paralell universe where the government has outlawed any encryption technology they themselves can't crack.
What makes you think that ONLY the American government will be able to get into it? With a hole in security that well-documented, the only thing between Iraq/China/North Korea and IBM's/Lockheed Martin's/General Motors' latest military technology is a little bribery to grease the gears. Who needs to hang on to an EP-3 when you've downloaded all you ever wanted to know about it half a decade ago?
Even if defence contractors like the ones above were given "real" encryption instead of what the general public uses, there are still commercial secrets that are a major part of our economy. What would have happened to Boeing if Airbus got their hands on the schematics of the 777 while it was still being designed? If Samsung "stumbled" upon the blueprints for the Pentium IV three years ago?
The US economy would take a nose-dive, along with national pride as everybody BUT us comes up with all the great ideas. We'd be left with having to import just about everything (because all the good ideas are from outside the US) with no meaningful exports (why would they import US goods when they have them already?). Let that simmer for a decade without fixing it in a major way, and you have a civil war.
I'm not saying that the feds aren't actively trying to break into our encryption schemes, but I AM saying that it is in their own best interest to make sure that what they're trying to crack is as hard as possible. Attempts by federal bodies to weaken commercial encryption is at worst their way of trying to find a "happy medium" for themselves, where they and only they have access to our information.
Before you accuse the feds of being too stupid to have the foresight to realize how important commercial encryption is to the US, remember that developing strong commercial encryption has been a stated goal of the NSA since before their existance was made public. It's not just PR.
"that's why the UK would use the Royal Marines or SAS or Royal Navy instead of Police."
They wouldn't send "police," either. I said "Marines" because the platform built by the Royal Navy. I also don't know the name of the USCG-equivalent over there (if any).
I'm probably just being picky, but "police" usually doesn't bring to mind cutters armed with anti-ship guns.
But (Roy Bates') plans were dealt a blow in 1987 when the UK extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles.
Now Sealand sits inside waters that Britain claims as its territory.
A spokesman for the Home Office said it had no reason to recognise Sealand as a nation. "We've no reason to believe that anyone else recognises it either," he added.
...
(John Bates, an expert on sea law and piracy) said because Sealand was man-made there was little chance that it would be recognised as a nation. "I don't think structures of that kind count as territory," he said.
So it would seem what I said earlier still stands: The only reason they're still there is because the Brits haven't had reason to shut them down.
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, NewYork, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.
Slashdot Mirror
... that the author sat on this book for six years, waiting until a bit after Kubrik's death so Stan couldn't tell him how full of it he is?
"So what are those claims? Alot of it makes good sense. For instance, Dave Bowman relates to Ulysses (a reknowned bowman in the myths)."
While I agree that there is a lot in common between A Space Odyssey and Homer's original (just look at the title!), I think this is taking it a little too far. If Clarke really wanted to do what this author is suggesting, why not call him "Dave Archer?"
"These letters, like the last nine in Frank Poole, can be rearranged to form an anagram. In this case, the anagram is "No Meat." A wooden horse has no meat on its skeletal framework."
Yeah, so? It also spells "toe man" and "no team" and "M... neato." Besides, the Trojan Horse had a lot of meat (in the form of the Greeks inside of it).
"But why the hexagons? Why not circles or squares or nothing?"
Because curved surfaces aren't justified, while using a cube would result in something that looks a little too much like a Tinker Toy.
"The rear-end hexagons are bathroom tiles! They symbolize bathrooms."
Exactly how far up his own ass did he have to reach to pull this one out? This makes those goat sex pics look tame in comparison!
"Hal-Discovery has three bathrooms, one for each mouth"
Um... how do you figure three? Is this "the new math?" And HAL is no more Discovery than Windows is my computer.
"It reminds us how good human minds, especially smart ones, are at finding patterns in crazy shit."
So, what you're saying is that this book is an example of how far computing needs to go before it catches up with human pattern-recognition skills?
"Wheat has the premise that Kubrick was so wicked smart that these long strings of meaning are not only possible, they are a sure thing."
Then perhaps he should sit down and write his next few books on "Dr. Strangelove," "Full Metal Jacket," and "Eyes Wide Shut." If Kubrik was half as smart as the author suggests, then he might be able to find the meaning of life in these movies.
"You also come away with the sense that Wheat is a pretty smart man himself."
Using big words makes you smart. Right. Or should I say "Utilizing unwieldy verbage demonstrates one's superior intellect?"
Um... last I checked, we were talking about encrypting video between the computer and the monitor, not some new kind of web filter. SLIGHT difference.
"such as sexually explicit images"
Darn that Gray's Anatomy...
"or anti-religious propaganda"
"It is difficult to imagine any law-abiding sane adult arguing against this technology."
Maybe because you never considered that the companies that write Linux or BSD or non-Windows 9x drivers for their own hardware is still in the minority? Maybe because you've never considered that this is a heartbeat away from charging you for driver upgrades? ("Buy our monitor and get a free one-year subscription to our driver update service, a $29.95 value!") Maybe because you think that federal wiretap laws are supposed to prevent you from tapping into your own wires?
And, last but not least, maybe you haven't considered that this may kill off computer hobbyists the same way the fuel injector killed off a big chunk of driveway mechanics. It's amazing how willingly you'll pay for that expensive "premium" hardware service and parts when do-it-yourself won't let you unlock the encryption.
After paying my college of choice thousands of dollars in tuition, they still feel the need to sell my e-mail address to advertisers. Why would I want to keep it?
What else would you call something that infringes upon an artist's/publisher's right to control distribution?
"US Minister of Culture (doubtful that anyone like that exists)"
Why you'd want to put your culture in the hands of the government is beyond me, especially since there's way too many cultures in the US to keep track of. I mean, I suppose it's useful in northern and central European countries, where 98% of the population is pure aryan already, but...
... a new US/EU trade war over this issue?
First off, there's no evidence that they've listened to the gamers yet. Secondly, I do recall those "Player's Poll" contests they had in the old issues of Nintendo Power. I ended my subscription somewhere around their fifth anniversary, so I don't know if they still do it, but...
Besides, if you spend too much time trying to listen to gamers' suggestions and not enough time on being creative, you're going to end up with recycled games. There's only so many iterations of Mortal Kombat you can make before it gets old. Nobody was asking for FPSes until somebody got creative and made Wolfenstein.
"(Flight Simulator, Age of Empires series, the * Madness games, Mechwarrior games, and more)"
No, for those I'm saying "just more of the same."
Microsoft Flight Simulator: flight simulators have been around almost as long as there have been computer games. Microsoft saw how well Chuck Yeager's game was doing, and said "We can do that..."
Age of Empires: Microsoft didn't have their AoE "bright idea" until after Blizzard's big success with the WarCraft series.
I'm not familiar with the Madness games
MechWarrior 3 & 4: Microsoft only bought the rights to the BattleTech line after the success of MechWarriors 1 & 2, Activision titles. I also have the feeling that FASA got screwed over somewhere in that deal, too...
All I'm seeing here is the trend of Microsoft trying to get into some pre-existing action. If Microsoft REALLY knew what gamers wanted, they wouldn't have to play catch-up to publish their own works in a pre-existing genre.
"And I guess the 150+ third-party developers that have already signed on (including big names, like Sega, Capcom, and Konami from the console side, and Epic and id from the PC side) are just marketing?"
All the companies you named (except maybe Epic) are signing on for all three systems. It makes business sense to spread the love, making sure you have as wide a customer base as possible. Heck, even id has seen its titles on the SNES and N64.
From where I sit, the majority of new gaming innovation will take place on either the GameCube or the PS2. Xbox players will just be getting sloppy seconds from Microsoft Publishing as new territory is explored on the other two systems. It doesn't matter how much "better" your new maze game is, it still ain't Pac-Man.
Too bad, already finished my math minor, so HAH! :)
Thank you, please drive through!
I still refuse to buy any computer that I can't assemble from parts myself.
Yes, Goldeneye is a great game (gotta love the sniper scope!), but it's still more of an exception rather than a rule. Maybe that's changing as business-types realize that the industry is making more money than movies, but it's still a bit of a slow process.
"Also, most of the people that I know who play games have played both starcraft and AoE, the second when we all got tired of the first, and liked both about as much."
However, being a "me, too!" game publisher doesn't do much to sell hardware or make a name for yourself as an industry. You've pointed out that most of the people you know played StarCraft first, and then moved on to AoE. There are also the people who bought StarCraft and didn't move on to AoE. AoE didn't really do anything for the genre, no new innovations, no immersive universe, just... well... more of the same.
I can't help but feel that if Microsoft were making games 20 years ago, they'd do nothing but churn out Pac-Man and Donkey Kong clones. And just like all the companies that did nothing but "me, too!" games, they'll be forgotten about after five years or so.
"Don't let the poor quality of microsoft's OS division close your mind entirely..."
The main problem with their OS division is the same as the main problem as all their other divisions: They are about money first, and everything else is just details. They don't want to be innovative, they don't want to push the envelope, they just want to continue getting a steady income from churning out 31 flavors of vanilla.
Nintendo is dedicated to what they do. They're all about the games, the whole games, and nothing but the games, and that's been their mantra for the past century or so (literally). Sony knows they don't know jack about games, so they whore themselves out to others that do (Squaresoft). Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing much of either.
So, either this means one of two things. Either Microsoft has a "master plan" that convinced the movie people to let them have exclusive rights to the name, or this is just another case of the movie publishers knowing nothing about the game industry, and letting the first company to come along have the rights (like so many movie-based games). Looking at how Microsoft relies more on marketing, hype, and copy-cat tactics than actually trying to figure out what the gamers want, I'm guessing it's the second one. :)
I can't think of any record-setting games that were based on a movie. Most of the best-sellers are original material, such as Final Fantasy and Zelda.
"and the XBox tech looks pretty good"
Yeah, no other system runs PhotoShop quite as well...
"Microsoft has played the gaming business better than anyone else ever has."
Like hell they have! When my friends and I have a LAN party, it's StarCraft we're playing, not AoE.
"Microsoft has decided they want to break into this market, and they're well on their way to domination."
I'm sorry, but I've yet to see anything from Microsoft that suggests that they'll be able to top Nintendo. So far, everything I've seen in the way of products for the Xbox seem rather wishy-washy at best, nothing really solid. At the very least, I don't see them being able to compete with a company that has been publishing sold and record-breaking hits from Donkey Kong to Zelda. If anything, Nintendo is gearing to seriously mess with Microsoft's turf with the new Metroid.
"The XBox will have a huge selection of software when it arrives"
A "quantity over quality" kind of person, I see... And what makes you think either GameCube or PS2 aren't going to have equally large libraries?
Batman (NES)
True Lies (SNES)
Robocop (arcade)
Those are just the three that immediately come to my mind.
Nintendo, on the other hand, has extremely strong first- and second-party developers, so strong that in-house development is practically the sole reason the N64 managed to stay afloat against competition from Sony. The only software publisher that even comes close to Nintendo as far as variety and great games are concerned is Sega (though Squaresoft tries to pretend that it doesn't just make RPGs). This looks to be a major asset to Nintendo in the next console war, because they'll be the only one with great exclusive games.
So, is the fact that Microsoft went out and bagged exclusive rights for The Matrix a sign that they're seriously concerned about GameCube's ability to sell on exclusive games alone?
More importantly, will a Matrix game written by Microsoft be able to stand up against Zelda, Metroid, Perfect Dark, etc, or will Microsoft just be another poser to get smacked down hard like so many before? (After the PhotoShop debacle, I'm tempted to think the latter).
Oh, and one more thing: Does the fact that Microsoft now needs to ship out patches for a bug in UltimateTV an example of Microsoft's (lack of) ability to build a solid set-top box?
The problem is that coding isn't expressive in the same way as, say, poetry. You can't easily express emotion in Java. I'd say the closest "real world" analog to coding is a cookbook: Add two integers and a float, and multiply vigorously. It's a series of instructions to an audience (chef, computer) with the intent of re-creating a particular outcome (soufle, screensaver).
It's hard for the outsider to see that pure code can be expressive because they don't have the ability to interpret pure code to any meaningful degree. A master chef or a master programmer can look at the set of instructions and understand exactly what the author is trying to reproduce without actually following the instructions, but Joe User is forced to actually bake that cake or run that code to get the full effect.
Anyway, moving right along, what is "expressiveness," anyway? I'm pretty sure that something is labelled "expressive" if it can incite a reaction from the intended audience. If you laugh at a comedy or cry at a tragedy, the author has done their job of expressing themselves through their words. Then it could be said that code is doubly-expressive. It gets a very specific reaction from the silicon-based audience (display X shade of blue for Y seconds), and then the computer's reaction incites another reaction in the computer's operator ("Woah, nice color effect!").
All in all, I'd say that code itself isn't as expressive as code + computer, but that doesn't mean that an experienced person can't understand and be moved by computer-speak by itself. A cookbook in German isn't very effective unless you have something (er... someone) that can understand and interpret the language. That doesn't mean that it isn't expressive to those that can understand German, nor does the fact that non-German-speakers can't understand it mean it's not speech.
"2. What examples of fair uses absolutely require access to the work in its most modern, digital, uncorrupted, un-macrovisioned form? The only one that jumped out at me is making a backup copy in case the original is destroyed. But perhaps there are others."
Well... all I can think of is for conducting a study that would inherently destroy the original. If you want to study specific intricate details of, say, the Mona Lisa, it would be best to do these studies on a copy (as exact a copy as possible) than to do it on the real thing. Different kinds of studies will require different degrees of exactness, but the most desirable copy is one that is exact in every detail.
You imply that you think I intended those numbers to be the same. I didn't. From what I've seen, the more items you sell, the lower the likelyhood of someone returning that item is. Some people don't return things no matter what.
"If I sold a hundred units and one was returned, I'd be concerned about that 1%, but not upset. If I sold a million units and only 100 were returned, I'd be FSCKING ESTATIC that 0.0001% of the units were defective / not wanted."
Speaking of bad math, 100/1,000,000 = 0.0001 = 0.01%
"The Principality of Sealand was there first"
However, there doesn't seeem to be indication that the UK has ever recognized Sealand as a soverign country, and neither has any other government that I know of.
"Soverignty" is something decided upon by other countries as they decide to recognize one government's claims as "legitimate" over another's. It's why Stalin only got one seat in the UN General Assembly instead of the 15 or so he wanted, one seat for each individual Soviet republic. (Well, that and the fact that somebody pointed out that the US should get 48 by the same logic)
Or, for an example more relevant, in the 1860's the UK and France did not acknowledge that the Confederate States of America was actually an independent country, so they did not get (directly) involved with aiding the CSA during the war.
"Also, it's not exacttly kosher for them to do that; territorial waters reach out to only three miles."
According to this reference, they were bringing themselves up-to-date to the most current language in the Law of the Sea treaty from 1982. Though it has yet to be officially ratified by the UN as international law (at least when this web page was written), most countries (like the US) follow its guidelines of a 12 nautical mile limit to territorial seas.
Have a look at the entries for maritime claims in the CIA's World Factbook. Most of them seem to say 12 nautical miles.
"There's another boundary that reaches out to 12 miles, but it isn't territorial waters"
According to the aforementioned links, the UK's claims to territorial waters is indeed 12 nautical miles.
"the UK is pulling something silly"
Silly or not, this is something that has been hammered out by three UN conferences on the subject.
"The world could use a few places where people can flee oppression, and the established countries just aren't cutting it."
The only solution is to change copyright and patent laws, not try to violate them. By thumbing their nose at copyright laws and international treaties, they're running the risk of being labelled as pirates (the REAL kind, not the software variety). Most civilized nations don't take kindly to pirates. Hell, the first military action seen by the US after the revolution was sending in the USMC to shoot up a bunch of Lybian pirates. And where will HavenCo's "principles" be when the Brits decide that their platform makes for good long-range artillery practice?
I take it you've never had to return something to Wal-Mart. It's a remarkably easy process. Their customer support desk is right by the front door, return something for almost any reason, and they'll give you cash if you have a receipt, and exchanges without one. They operate under the philosphy of "keep them happy, and they'll keep spending their money here." They can afford to "lose" money on returns.
On the other hand, I know of several small shops I've been to where the guy behind the counter has an "us versus them" attitude towards their customers, where you have to prove that the problem is the fault of the store's, because they can't always afford to give you a refund.
It's true that there are some exceptions to both scenarios, the fact remains that the bigger the store and the more sales they have, the more they can afford better customer service. One return out of 100 hurts more than 100 returns out of a million.
After all, Russia's broke, but they're still able to keep high-ranking moles in the US intelligence community on the payroll.
I'm not agreeing with the tactic, I'm just saying that it's been blown out of proportion.
Let's say we live in a paralell universe where the government has outlawed any encryption technology they themselves can't crack.
What makes you think that ONLY the American government will be able to get into it? With a hole in security that well-documented, the only thing between Iraq/China/North Korea and IBM's/Lockheed Martin's/General Motors' latest military technology is a little bribery to grease the gears. Who needs to hang on to an EP-3 when you've downloaded all you ever wanted to know about it half a decade ago?
Even if defence contractors like the ones above were given "real" encryption instead of what the general public uses, there are still commercial secrets that are a major part of our economy. What would have happened to Boeing if Airbus got their hands on the schematics of the 777 while it was still being designed? If Samsung "stumbled" upon the blueprints for the Pentium IV three years ago?
The US economy would take a nose-dive, along with national pride as everybody BUT us comes up with all the great ideas. We'd be left with having to import just about everything (because all the good ideas are from outside the US) with no meaningful exports (why would they import US goods when they have them already?). Let that simmer for a decade without fixing it in a major way, and you have a civil war.
I'm not saying that the feds aren't actively trying to break into our encryption schemes, but I AM saying that it is in their own best interest to make sure that what they're trying to crack is as hard as possible. Attempts by federal bodies to weaken commercial encryption is at worst their way of trying to find a "happy medium" for themselves, where they and only they have access to our information.
Before you accuse the feds of being too stupid to have the foresight to realize how important commercial encryption is to the US, remember that developing strong commercial encryption has been a stated goal of the NSA since before their existance was made public. It's not just PR.
They wouldn't send "police," either. I said "Marines" because the platform built by the Royal Navy. I also don't know the name of the USCG-equivalent over there (if any).
I'm probably just being picky, but "police" usually doesn't bring to mind cutters armed with anti-ship guns.
30 September 1783
Have you got a link for that? International waters or not, ocean platforms belong to the organization (or, in this case, military) that built them.