Two years on each, according to Wikipedia. While I can understand the Gamecube (seeing that the Wii is an enhanced GameCube), I believe Microsoft made the decision to cut their losses and double down on the 360. It was a shit move on their part, but it was probably the best move for them in the long run.
Yeah, but AAA titles aren't made for PS2 and then sloppily ported to everything else. PC games are still pretty much 360 games with keyboard and mouse support instead of games that take advantage of what DX 10 or 11 cards can do. When the next batch of consoles come out, maybe then I can get some real use out of my graphics card.
Just because the lifespan is supposed to be around 10 years, doesn't mean the next generation has to wait until the console was out for that long. With most consoles, there have always been some overlap. the NES wasn't discontinued immediately after the SNES was released, it hung on for a few years (in the case of Japan...until 2003!). 3DS is out and the DS is still kicking. Hell, even the PS2 is still hanging on.
They can talk all they want about how long this cycle is going to last, but all they need is a catalyst to make people jump ship to get them to move on. If Nintendo becomes the early leader that the 360 was this generation, I guarantee that the next Xbox will be out soon after.
Yay, another bullshit console that's going to be obsolete and replaced by some other POS the year after that...
Really? You can say many things about consoles, but short lived is usually not one of them (for successful ones at least). If anything, IMO, this generation has worn out its welcome. Then again, I am primarily a PC gamer.
Microsoft issues a press release to announce that they're not going to announce anything. And it makes the headlines of Slashdot. And I'm reading it on a Friday night. That's it, I'm off to drink beer, even if it isn't free.
Not only that, but it wasn't really expected to be there. Nintendo announced that the Wii U will be at this years E3, so every gaming publication seemed to bug Microsoft and Sony what they were going to do about it. They both, more or less said "nothing". Neither has any plans of releasing a next-gen console in the near future (i.e. this year).
This is just them reiterating the same point that everyone knew, there is nothing to show at this time.
It used to be that one went to the movies to see good, well made entertainment. TV was nothing but trash. It actually seems as if the table has turned. Now, the movie scene is practically nothing but trash (still a few good indie films here and there, but little good from Hollywood) and the better stuff is on TV. Granted, TV still has its share of low-budget crap (Reality shows, broad comedies, Fox News) but you also have a fair share of really good shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Louie.
In the early eighties, computers were niche at best. Something only for accountants, secretaries, scientists, hobbyists, and rich kids. Modems were horribly expensive, phone charges were criminally expensive (especially long distance), plus you had to pay for the service. Scientists and College students probably had access to one of the academic networks of the time, most hobbyists were probably satisfied with Bulletin Board Systems, and most businesses aren't going foot the bill for something like this, with the possible exception major banks and stock market trading firms. On top of this, these services were competing with free TV and radio and cheap newspapers.
Simply put, it most likely failed because the cost of entry was too high for a service that could be had for cheap or free.
Of couse, a lot of people want their silly printers with 2GB daemons that let them "press a button to scan", instead of opening a decent program manually to do so.
That can easily be fixed. Just as most modern keyboards have media keys, and some standardized quick launch keys that the OS / window manager handle, why not just create a standardized "scan" button / signal. It opens up the default scan-capable program and makes a scan. Best of both worlds, but I doubt it would happen.
What you are saying is that we need less standardization and not more? Hooking up a printer should not require a large software suite of drivers and bloatware. Technology has advanced to the point where printers can have a small microcontroller that converts some sort of standard input into control signals to print an image and give some sort of standardized output such as status messages and error flags. Installing a printer should be as simple as hooking it up to the computer (or setting it up on the network). Anything beyond that is poor design.
If it takes Apple to push printer manufactures into standardizing printers so that installing bloated drivers is a thing of the past, then I wish them luck.
I have loved Palm since I got my first Palm IIIe. I even upgraded to 3 different Palm devices (IIIxe, Tungsten T, and Tungsten C). I used those things until they died. Towards the end, PalmOS became a complete mess by just tacking on modern features to an OS that was originally designed around simplicity and a monochrome screen with only a simple speaker.
When I got my iTouch, I loved it. It blew my old Palm devices out of the water. PalmOS was ugly and not very user friendly (at least not the later versions). So, if you are implying that iOS is a step back from PalmOS, you probably haven't used one recently.
Yes, because most 20 year-olds back in the fifties and early sixties were all intelligent, serious, hard-working, responsible adults.
The young engineers working at NASA worked hard to get where they were. Just like there are many 20-something engineers today who also working their ass off. The difference between now and then is that engineering and government service wasn't looked down upon as it is today. It was also a well paying profession. Those smart, motivated young people are now attracted more towards financial and web-based endeavors. Because that is where the money and opportunities are.
Doc Brown has a family now. Do you think that a DeLorean is going to fit him, his wife, two kids, a dog, and his friend with Parkinson's disease? No. He can't afford to ruin the lives of the Tannen family while traveling in style. He needs a more practical solution. He needs an SUV with Gull-wing doors for his time-traveling hijinks.
Just give me a simple two door with Gull-wing doors.
Also what is price of a hover conversion and a Mr. Fusion to power the battery? I am in the need of a replacement vehicle since my customized DeLorean was...um..hit by a train.
God creates raptors. God wipes out all life on earth to eliminate raptors. God creates man, man kills god. Man creates raptors. Raptors destroy universe.
I thought Jurassic Park was more of a cautionary tale that raptors are godless killing machines.
You have obviously never tried to throw the disc like a ninja star or a Frisbee at someone. That can do some serious damage, especially aimed at bare skin.
Lucas did put the original theatrical releases on DVD as a bonus disc when you buy the DVD releases of the original trilogy. They are completely unaltered but also more or less VHS quality with non-anamorphic widescreen.
Turner Classic Movies channel still exists and presents classic movies (as in ~1930's to ~1960's with the occasional contemporary film) commercial free.
The crux of the matter is that copyright, like many things are too nebulous to be perfect. If it is defined as too broad and all encompassing it can easily be corrupted and abused, as it is now. If it is too narrow and permissive it is useless. Since the widespread use of computers and the development of the internet things have drastically changed everything, then people, businesses and society needs to change with it. However, that doesn't mean tearing it all down, but molding what we do have to fit the reality of our own advancements.
That's certainly the popular opinion right now, but what if I was to suggest that restricting people's freedom to copy information freely is the greatest evil imaginable? "Freedom of speech" is not something to be casually ignored. Besides the freedom to copy information freely being a guard against all other forms of abuse, I would suggest that maybe to say to someone "stop singing that song you heard, it's copyrighted" is about as "evil" a law as could ever be imagined. That's just my opinion though, I can see where others might not agree.
What if I was to suggest that the only work people deserve to profit from is that work that others have voluntarily agreed to pay for?
You are correct, artists do not deserve to to profit from their works. The deserve the potential to profit from their works. Just because I write some crappy story doesn't mean I deserve money. What if this is not some crappy story, maybe it is the great American novel like "Moby Dick". I deserve to be able to market it and print it and sell it. Without copyright what is keeping some rich publisher from taking my story, publishing it, and never giving me a dime. It is only words on a page. Lets say that is illegal. What is keeping them from taking my novel, changing the characters names and maybe changing a few random words. Instead of "Moby Dick" we have "Dicky Moe" the great black whale, It is now a new, albeit highly derivative, work. The problem with this is where is the line crossed? Should I hold all rights to stories about whales? No. What if someone decides to make a movie out of my book. The story and characters are mine maybe even some of the dialog, but I didn't write the script. I may not even know the movie is being made. Should I be compensated in any way? Should I have any say in the artistic direction of the movie?
Copyright says what you can and can't do with my work. I believe more strongly that is should be defined as what you can and can't do with my work for profit. Right now, copyright is being used by corporations to exploit the customers while it should be used to protect artists from those same corporations. That is why fair use is extremely important. Most (reasonable) artists wouldn't tell some random guy on the street to "quit humming my song" but they might tell Fox, "Don't use my song on American Idol". Most reasonably playwrights wouldn't care if some middle school puts on a production of their play but would be pissed if it went to Broadway without their permission.
Why 20 years? Why not 19 years, or 21 years? Why have any limit at all if you really believe that "artists deserve to profit from their work"? Putting a limit only reduces the compensation that was claimed to be "deserved". Why would they deserve the compensation in the first place, but then not also deserve the compensation from selling the freedom to copy their work to someone who would use it for a longer term?
20 years is an arbitrary number. Artists do deserve the potential to profit from their work. However, there is an unwritten social contract with artists that says that art and culture of all kinds enrich the community and indeed the World. To give incentive for people to create, we the people will cede certain rights for a short period of time so as to give them time to try to profit from their work. Once that time is over, their work belongs to everyone. I believe that ~20 years
Copyright is not evil in and of itself. I believe that it is a good thing. Artists deserve to profit from their work. I completely agree with the notion that taking someone else's hard work and calling it one's own should be illegal. The problem isn't copyright in general, it is the terms of copyright that are unethical. Reforms need to be made including what can be copyrighted (there are too many things that are getting copyrighted that are way too broad and really shouldn't be), and definitely length (should be 20 years or life of author -- which ever comes first). What constitutes fair use also needs to be broadened. I also feel the same way about the patent system. The thing is copyright has been corrupted and misused. The solution is not to abandon it all together but to reform it so that it again works in the interests of the people and not the corporations.
I watched the Bill Maher's documentary, Religulous. Of all the things in it that truly amazed me, was how 'enlightened' the Catholic Church (at least what few 'representatives' of the Vatican he could interview) seemed to be. All the fundamentalists in the US argued to the last that the Bible was the infallible word of God. The Catholics believed that it was an old book that needed to be taken with a grain of salt. It is the teachings in the book that matters and that science is a good thing because to know the universe is to know god.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh! So like the sands of the hourglass such are the days of our lives...
Two years on each, according to Wikipedia. While I can understand the Gamecube (seeing that the Wii is an enhanced GameCube), I believe Microsoft made the decision to cut their losses and double down on the 360. It was a shit move on their part, but it was probably the best move for them in the long run.
Yeah, but AAA titles aren't made for PS2 and then sloppily ported to everything else. PC games are still pretty much 360 games with keyboard and mouse support instead of games that take advantage of what DX 10 or 11 cards can do. When the next batch of consoles come out, maybe then I can get some real use out of my graphics card.
Just because the lifespan is supposed to be around 10 years, doesn't mean the next generation has to wait until the console was out for that long. With most consoles, there have always been some overlap. the NES wasn't discontinued immediately after the SNES was released, it hung on for a few years (in the case of Japan...until 2003!). 3DS is out and the DS is still kicking. Hell, even the PS2 is still hanging on.
They can talk all they want about how long this cycle is going to last, but all they need is a catalyst to make people jump ship to get them to move on. If Nintendo becomes the early leader that the 360 was this generation, I guarantee that the next Xbox will be out soon after.
Yay, another bullshit console that's going to be obsolete and replaced by some other POS the year after that...
Really? You can say many things about consoles, but short lived is usually not one of them (for successful ones at least). If anything, IMO, this generation has worn out its welcome. Then again, I am primarily a PC gamer.
Microsoft issues a press release to announce that they're not going to announce anything. And it makes the headlines of Slashdot. And I'm reading it on a Friday night. That's it, I'm off to drink beer, even if it isn't free.
Not only that, but it wasn't really expected to be there. Nintendo announced that the Wii U will be at this years E3, so every gaming publication seemed to bug Microsoft and Sony what they were going to do about it. They both, more or less said "nothing". Neither has any plans of releasing a next-gen console in the near future (i.e. this year).
This is just them reiterating the same point that everyone knew, there is nothing to show at this time.
My advice to you is to keep drinking heavily.
To quote the philosophers, Sam and Max,
Sam: Cash. Never leave home without it.
Max: Yeah. We may need it to bribe slippery government officials.
Then again, Sturgeon's Law still applies.
This already happened with American TV.
It used to be that one went to the movies to see good, well made entertainment. TV was nothing but trash. It actually seems as if the table has turned. Now, the movie scene is practically nothing but trash (still a few good indie films here and there, but little good from Hollywood) and the better stuff is on TV. Granted, TV still has its share of low-budget crap (Reality shows, broad comedies, Fox News) but you also have a fair share of really good shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Louie.
Pfft... Try Smoke and Mirrors on Impossible difficulty.
I dare you to beat that.
That seems way too simplistic.
In the early eighties, computers were niche at best. Something only for accountants, secretaries, scientists, hobbyists, and rich kids. Modems were horribly expensive, phone charges were criminally expensive (especially long distance), plus you had to pay for the service. Scientists and College students probably had access to one of the academic networks of the time, most hobbyists were probably satisfied with Bulletin Board Systems, and most businesses aren't going foot the bill for something like this, with the possible exception major banks and stock market trading firms. On top of this, these services were competing with free TV and radio and cheap newspapers.
Simply put, it most likely failed because the cost of entry was too high for a service that could be had for cheap or free.
Of couse, a lot of people want their silly printers with 2GB daemons that let them "press a button to scan", instead of opening a decent program manually to do so.
That can easily be fixed. Just as most modern keyboards have media keys, and some standardized quick launch keys that the OS / window manager handle, why not just create a standardized "scan" button / signal. It opens up the default scan-capable program and makes a scan. Best of both worlds, but I doubt it would happen.
What you are saying is that we need less standardization and not more? Hooking up a printer should not require a large software suite of drivers and bloatware. Technology has advanced to the point where printers can have a small microcontroller that converts some sort of standard input into control signals to print an image and give some sort of standardized output such as status messages and error flags. Installing a printer should be as simple as hooking it up to the computer (or setting it up on the network). Anything beyond that is poor design.
If it takes Apple to push printer manufactures into standardizing printers so that installing bloated drivers is a thing of the past, then I wish them luck.
I have loved Palm since I got my first Palm IIIe. I even upgraded to 3 different Palm devices (IIIxe, Tungsten T, and Tungsten C). I used those things until they died. Towards the end, PalmOS became a complete mess by just tacking on modern features to an OS that was originally designed around simplicity and a monochrome screen with only a simple speaker.
When I got my iTouch, I loved it. It blew my old Palm devices out of the water. PalmOS was ugly and not very user friendly (at least not the later versions). So, if you are implying that iOS is a step back from PalmOS, you probably haven't used one recently.
Yes, because most 20 year-olds back in the fifties and early sixties were all intelligent, serious, hard-working, responsible adults.
The young engineers working at NASA worked hard to get where they were. Just like there are many 20-something engineers today who also working their ass off. The difference between now and then is that engineering and government service wasn't looked down upon as it is today. It was also a well paying profession. Those smart, motivated young people are now attracted more towards financial and web-based endeavors. Because that is where the money and opportunities are.
Doc Brown has a family now. Do you think that a DeLorean is going to fit him, his wife, two kids, a dog, and his friend with Parkinson's disease? No. He can't afford to ruin the lives of the Tannen family while traveling in style. He needs a more practical solution. He needs an SUV with Gull-wing doors for his time-traveling hijinks.
Just give me a simple two door with Gull-wing doors.
Also what is price of a hover conversion and a Mr. Fusion to power the battery? I am in the need of a replacement vehicle since my customized DeLorean was...um..hit by a train.
God creates raptors. God wipes out all life on earth to eliminate raptors. God creates man, man kills god. Man creates raptors. Raptors destroy universe.
I thought Jurassic Park was more of a cautionary tale that raptors are godless killing machines.
If it is, it is worse that I have all those movies on DVD.
You have obviously never tried to throw the disc like a ninja star or a Frisbee at someone. That can do some serious damage, especially aimed at bare skin.
Lucas did put the original theatrical releases on DVD as a bonus disc when you buy the DVD releases of the original trilogy. They are completely unaltered but also more or less VHS quality with non-anamorphic widescreen.
Turner Classic Movies channel still exists and presents classic movies (as in ~1930's to ~1960's with the occasional contemporary film) commercial free.
The crux of the matter is that copyright, like many things are too nebulous to be perfect. If it is defined as too broad and all encompassing it can easily be corrupted and abused, as it is now. If it is too narrow and permissive it is useless. Since the widespread use of computers and the development of the internet things have drastically changed everything, then people, businesses and society needs to change with it. However, that doesn't mean tearing it all down, but molding what we do have to fit the reality of our own advancements.
That's certainly the popular opinion right now, but what if I was to suggest that restricting people's freedom to copy information freely is the greatest evil imaginable? "Freedom of speech" is not something to be casually ignored. Besides the freedom to copy information freely being a guard against all other forms of abuse, I would suggest that maybe to say to someone "stop singing that song you heard, it's copyrighted" is about as "evil" a law as could ever be imagined. That's just my opinion though, I can see where others might not agree.
What if I was to suggest that the only work people deserve to profit from is that work that others have voluntarily agreed to pay for?
You are correct, artists do not deserve to to profit from their works. The deserve the potential to profit from their works. Just because I write some crappy story doesn't mean I deserve money. What if this is not some crappy story, maybe it is the great American novel like "Moby Dick". I deserve to be able to market it and print it and sell it. Without copyright what is keeping some rich publisher from taking my story, publishing it, and never giving me a dime. It is only words on a page. Lets say that is illegal. What is keeping them from taking my novel, changing the characters names and maybe changing a few random words. Instead of "Moby Dick" we have "Dicky Moe" the great black whale, It is now a new, albeit highly derivative, work. The problem with this is where is the line crossed? Should I hold all rights to stories about whales? No. What if someone decides to make a movie out of my book. The story and characters are mine maybe even some of the dialog, but I didn't write the script. I may not even know the movie is being made. Should I be compensated in any way? Should I have any say in the artistic direction of the movie?
Copyright says what you can and can't do with my work. I believe more strongly that is should be defined as what you can and can't do with my work for profit. Right now, copyright is being used by corporations to exploit the customers while it should be used to protect artists from those same corporations. That is why fair use is extremely important. Most (reasonable) artists wouldn't tell some random guy on the street to "quit humming my song" but they might tell Fox, "Don't use my song on American Idol". Most reasonably playwrights wouldn't care if some middle school puts on a production of their play but would be pissed if it went to Broadway without their permission.
Why 20 years? Why not 19 years, or 21 years? Why have any limit at all if you really believe that "artists deserve to profit from their work"? Putting a limit only reduces the compensation that was claimed to be "deserved". Why would they deserve the compensation in the first place, but then not also deserve the compensation from selling the freedom to copy their work to someone who would use it for a longer term?
20 years is an arbitrary number. Artists do deserve the potential to profit from their work. However, there is an unwritten social contract with artists that says that art and culture of all kinds enrich the community and indeed the World. To give incentive for people to create, we the people will cede certain rights for a short period of time so as to give them time to try to profit from their work. Once that time is over, their work belongs to everyone. I believe that ~20 years
Copyright is not evil in and of itself. I believe that it is a good thing. Artists deserve to profit from their work. I completely agree with the notion that taking someone else's hard work and calling it one's own should be illegal. The problem isn't copyright in general, it is the terms of copyright that are unethical. Reforms need to be made including what can be copyrighted (there are too many things that are getting copyrighted that are way too broad and really shouldn't be), and definitely length (should be 20 years or life of author -- which ever comes first). What constitutes fair use also needs to be broadened. I also feel the same way about the patent system. The thing is copyright has been corrupted and misused. The solution is not to abandon it all together but to reform it so that it again works in the interests of the people and not the corporations.
I watched the Bill Maher's documentary, Religulous. Of all the things in it that truly amazed me, was how 'enlightened' the Catholic Church (at least what few 'representatives' of the Vatican he could interview) seemed to be. All the fundamentalists in the US argued to the last that the Bible was the infallible word of God. The Catholics believed that it was an old book that needed to be taken with a grain of salt. It is the teachings in the book that matters and that science is a good thing because to know the universe is to know god.