"Last time I ran Real Player on Windows that just involved changing the settings in the options tab. Now, i'll not overestimate the technical ability of most users, but unless things have changed it wasn't a lot harder than grasping the principle of how to turn your computer on."
Things have indeed changed. With the current version the messaging/popups are extremely obnoxious to disable and I'm something of an expert user. While overall the process is less annoying than it has been in past years, that specific aspect is much worse.
There's no version for Linux. That makes me a sad penguin.
Dude, I'm a linux desktop user myself. But are you really surprised that an independent shop doesn't put out a Linux version of their first game? I assume they are trying their damndest to put out a great game that reaches out to the largest possible audience because of limited scope. Hell, most studios with huge budgets don't bother to put out Linux versions of stuff, yet you expect the small guys to bend over backwards for the two of us who use Linux at home?
Is it still a shameless plug if you're not the one personally benefitting from the plug? Either way, a friend of mine has produced a gorgeous 2D game, Steam Brigade that is totally worth checking out if you like that sort of thing.
What people forget, is that even if the AllofMP3 is legal in Russia, buying that music and downloading it into your non-russian home country is likely not. So it could both be true that AllofMP3 is not an illegal service in Russia and also at the same time have many of its users are still copyright infringers ("pirates").
No, that entry says that his dinner companion, who he called a "local businesswoman", was a prostitute. I'm not remarking on the truth of the situation, I have no idea. But you are completely misrepresenting what that link actually says.
I know some people don't like RMS, but he nailed this one for sure. Just look at the Slashdot headline for this article "Pearl Jam Releases Video Under Creative Commons"... lumping them all together just as RMS suggested people would. "Creative Commons" without describing the varient doesn't mean anything at all, yet that is the message the headline gives and a real problem with the suite of CC licenses. Certainly, people can specifiy which CC license you are talking about (as the body text of the slashdot article does), but it's still overly confusing.
Consider the analogous slashdot heading "Company Releases Program Under GPL" -- the GPL is a title that unlike CC has a specific meaning, if it's GPL you know what to expect whether you like that license or not. The problem with CC is really worse than the similarily vaguely defined label "open source" because some of the CC licenses are really quite restrictive.
I do understand what the people behind CC are trying to do, and I respect that. I just wish that they had put more effort into promoting the use of individual specific licenses instead of the CC 'brand'. GNU does this well, they have GPL, GFDL, LGPL as their own separate brand instead of just calling it a "GNU license" which doesn't convey the specificness those different concepts represent.
Yes, what you describe is the traditional model of selling a time-sensitive product, you do it very well. That is how people do this, this is why Microsoft was all too happy to sell out of 360s when they launched.
HOWEVER.
While they did not, Microsoft _could_ have initially priced the 360s higher and made more money per unit off the early adopters. Once the frenzy died down they would return to "normal" prices and the rest of the people would buy one who wouldn't have bought at the higher initial price.
The advantage to having their product sell out is that it builds hype, which in theory will increase demand in the longer term which will offset the short term reduction in profit margins (or increased loss margins in this case). This is further complicated by the fact that the console companies make lots of their money off game licences, so in addition to the advantage of hype, getting their consoles to consumers early can mean more games and more money in the long run.
But if Sony figured that their former customers would return no matter what, that the PS3 was superior to the competition and would eventually get the same dominant market share they have now -- then pricing high initially makes sense. They make more money (lose less money) in the short run by shafting the people who want the PS3 at any price, and all the while drive their manufacturing costs down. And then poof, they can compete with the Wii and 360 with a better price point and be better off financially for it.
I don't know if the gamble will pay off, it's a big one. The alternative is for sony to price the machine at an even larger loss than it is now and lose piles and piles of money in the short run, all in order to get the customers they assume they will eventually retain anyhow. If Sony is wrong, then they will lose their dominant position on the market they had with the PS2. But still, fast-forward 1-2 years from now, and the cost of the console in November 2006 won't be a big deal anymore. The only question to me is will the PS3 be a huge success or just a success... the idea that Sony will self-destruct over this is ridiculous.
In every manufacturing process, as time goes on the costs of manufacturing decrease. As volume increases and time passes, the once-newfangled manufacturing processes get more refined and streamlined. As they get better at making the products and make them in larger batches they can drive the costs down. Even if the PS3 ships zero units, in two years all of their gee-whiz-bang components right now like Cell and Blu-Ray will be used in many non-PS3 machines -- so their supply costs will go down to produce the same machine in two years.
That's just how things work -- is that mu assumption or just an observation?
Sony is not going to self-destruct because their console is priced high on release day, it was simply a tactical decision to attempt to capitalize on the willingness of their most eager fans to spend whatever it takes to get one on or near release day. Recall how with many console releases they can sell out the initial batches to the point where it is difficult to find one in a store for the first while? Sony is avoiding that by pricing their console higher on day one, they will make more money from the initial adopters and run less risk of selling out. THEN, when they have ramped up production and can produce more units at lower lost, then they will drop the price to a more reasonable level and all of a sudden the console looks a lot more affordable in comparison with the less-powered consoles from Nintendo and Microsoft.
At least that is the theory. It could easily backfire, as it seems to be doing judging by comments on this and other sites, by having a backlash against the initial price so strong that it actually turns people away from the console and onto the other platforms instead of them waiting for the price of the PS3 to drop as it inevitably will. But still, people are looking at this scene like it's all based on what happens in November and December of this year instead of looking at it like it's a multi-year game. In 1 year, in 2 years, in 3 -- the initial price of the PS3 will not be a big deal anymore.
How it will help: it may stem the tide away from Java that is right now going towards LAMP. There should be little doubt that if Java had been open source from the start, LAMP would have never taken off the way it did -- but LAMP had the advantage of being free and clear distributed with all major Linux distributions and complex solutions could be drawn up around them. It's too late for Sun to turn back the clock by open sourcing Java, but it's not too late for them to realize that Java's acceptance on the Linux market will be helped by having distributers able to include copies free and clear. Red Hat in particular would likely embrace a Sun Java solution as they are hostile towards adopting Mono in RHES and often market Java-based solutions (though with gcj/gjc instead of Sun Java). This would not help Sun directly, but it would help grow the market for server side Java solutions, which is their whole point right?
It works on linux just fine, I just watched a bit of this week's episode of Alias. Install wine, install the windows version firefox under wine, and then install the flash 8.5 beta also under wine. It runs perfectly after that.
I know I know, DRM is a dirty word for slashbots, but hear me out:
If the DRM process was an open spec that anyone could implement, and the creators could dictate the terms of use for their creation, this satisfies your 3 criteria that you laid out in your comment. 1, it allows compensation for creators, a legal player would not be able to display/play content without a key if the creators desire this. 2, the public is not hindered to use their creations, because anyone can create a legal player so long as it respects the DRM. 3, you can design the technology to backup your files and share files as you please -- but they will only function if the player has the correct unique legal key.
Patents and trademarks are other issues and should be dealt with seperately.
It predicts lots of things: the rise of radical religious groups taking control of all branches of government which then impose a specific religious myth on everyone else and slowly erode secular democracy. As it predicts, so it seems to be...
"Is this a bad thing? A few friends and I have found that there are uses for having a set of addresses which only get spam..."
You sir, have obviously never had several thousand emails arrive on your inbox at once, not ceasing for days... causing your spamassassin daemons to go nuts causing cascading failures all over your system as your computer runs out of memory.
That's where I thought Dawkins was going to go, but I was pleasantly surprised to see him veer slightly off message for a bit and come up with something interesting. That said, I agree with you.
I know at one point in the show you've stated that you like to stay away from the "ooga booga" myths, meaning I suppose the ones with a bit of mysticism attached to them. But still, a large percentage of the myths out there actually fall into that category. A good compromise might be doing a Halloween episode in which you dedicate one show to taking on a few of the most tv-friendly "ooga booga" mythbusting. What do you think of this idea?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that in Gnome 2.10 (and maybe the previous release too), even the previously working applications:/// was stripped out. The new menu editor, and the more advanced menu editor smeg, are a very welcome re-addition.
I guess I've been spoiled by using Ubuntu where you only need the one CD to get things working and then download the rest. Can anyone tell me if all four CDs are actually needed?
"I haven't seen SA, but from what I've encountered in GTA (a noble series that it may be), there are no "complex rule systems": just a big sandbox and some simple rules. "New interfaces" are nothing that a bog-standard game controller can do and has done for the last fifteen years, and "multiple objectives" are pretty much ruled out by the straightforward mission structure."
Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about then, eh? Perhaps it would surprise you then to find out that the characterization of the game by the article was absolutely correct. The game is enormous in size and contains a staggering variety of gameplay interactions, each with their own set of unique rules and interfaces.
To complete the game you have to master driving cars, bicycles, big rigs, helicopters, airplanes, harrier jets, hovercraft, jetpacks, and motorbikes. Each of these requires learning and mastering a new skill, some of them are quite difficult to learn. At most points in the game you do have multiple objectives, just as the article states, the mission structure is not straightforward as you choose what part of the game you want to complete next.
Perhaps before you judge something next time you actually do more that make assumptions based on your limited observations. Same advice I'd give Hillary, if she cared.
Actually, avoiding vendor lock-in is precisely the reason why I enjoy using free software. Your arguments about BSODs are bunk, I would say that my poorly supported (by linux) laptop crashes significantly more frequently than Windows ever did. Yet I use it anyway, because of several reasons.
One of the primary reasons I continue to use linux despite my hardware being ill supported is a relative lack of vendor lock-in. I am not forced on a paid upgrade schedule or to a certain vendor. Despite what the consultant said in this article, for my purposes I can take my applications and use them on any number of distributions if I someday become unhappy with my current favourite, Ubuntu.
$21M/28 movies comes to $750K per movie. Which is exactly what the article says the SciFi network paid for each of these movies, with the producers expecting to recoup the remainder of the costs to be recouped via other sales (international, DVD).
What, just because a couple of slashbots agreed with me you think you "won" the argument? It has been shown to you by multiple people in multiple places exactly why you are wrong to try to get distributions to include autopackage by default. I don't need to rehash them here, because you obviously don't care or aren't paying attention to what I (and the people who are better spoken than me) have been repeatedly trying to explain to you. Slander the opposing arguments by calling them "elitist" or whatever you want, but you're still wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"Last time I ran Real Player on Windows that just involved changing the settings in the options tab. Now, i'll not overestimate the technical ability of most users, but unless things have changed it wasn't a lot harder than grasping the principle of how to turn your computer on."
Things have indeed changed. With the current version the messaging/popups are extremely obnoxious to disable and I'm something of an expert user. While overall the process is less annoying than it has been in past years, that specific aspect is much worse.
I have an open task right now that requires me to prepend a zero when parsing vendor data that has only four digits.
Exactly. You don't usually hand the MVP and the Most Improved trophies to the same person...
There's no version for Linux. That makes me a sad penguin.
Dude, I'm a linux desktop user myself. But are you really surprised that an independent shop doesn't put out a Linux version of their first game? I assume they are trying their damndest to put out a great game that reaches out to the largest possible audience because of limited scope. Hell, most studios with huge budgets don't bother to put out Linux versions of stuff, yet you expect the small guys to bend over backwards for the two of us who use Linux at home?
Is it still a shameless plug if you're not the one personally benefitting from the plug? Either way, a friend of mine has produced a gorgeous 2D game, Steam Brigade that is totally worth checking out if you like that sort of thing.
What people forget, is that even if the AllofMP3 is legal in Russia, buying that music and downloading it into your non-russian home country is likely not. So it could both be true that AllofMP3 is not an illegal service in Russia and also at the same time have many of its users are still copyright infringers ("pirates").
No, that entry says that his dinner companion, who he called a "local businesswoman", was a prostitute. I'm not remarking on the truth of the situation, I have no idea. But you are completely misrepresenting what that link actually says.
That's okay, you can always check mirrordot.
uh...
I know some people don't like RMS, but he nailed this one for sure. Just look at the Slashdot headline for this article "Pearl Jam Releases Video Under Creative Commons"... lumping them all together just as RMS suggested people would. "Creative Commons" without describing the varient doesn't mean anything at all, yet that is the message the headline gives and a real problem with the suite of CC licenses. Certainly, people can specifiy which CC license you are talking about (as the body text of the slashdot article does), but it's still overly confusing.
Consider the analogous slashdot heading "Company Releases Program Under GPL" -- the GPL is a title that unlike CC has a specific meaning, if it's GPL you know what to expect whether you like that license or not. The problem with CC is really worse than the similarily vaguely defined label "open source" because some of the CC licenses are really quite restrictive.
I do understand what the people behind CC are trying to do, and I respect that. I just wish that they had put more effort into promoting the use of individual specific licenses instead of the CC 'brand'. GNU does this well, they have GPL, GFDL, LGPL as their own separate brand instead of just calling it a "GNU license" which doesn't convey the specificness those different concepts represent.
Yes, what you describe is the traditional model of selling a time-sensitive product, you do it very well. That is how people do this, this is why Microsoft was all too happy to sell out of 360s when they launched.
HOWEVER.
While they did not, Microsoft _could_ have initially priced the 360s higher and made more money per unit off the early adopters. Once the frenzy died down they would return to "normal" prices and the rest of the people would buy one who wouldn't have bought at the higher initial price.
The advantage to having their product sell out is that it builds hype, which in theory will increase demand in the longer term which will offset the short term reduction in profit margins (or increased loss margins in this case). This is further complicated by the fact that the console companies make lots of their money off game licences, so in addition to the advantage of hype, getting their consoles to consumers early can mean more games and more money in the long run.
But if Sony figured that their former customers would return no matter what, that the PS3 was superior to the competition and would eventually get the same dominant market share they have now -- then pricing high initially makes sense. They make more money
(lose less money) in the short run by shafting the people who want the PS3 at any price, and all the while drive their manufacturing costs down. And then poof, they can compete with the Wii and 360 with a better price point and be better off financially for it.
I don't know if the gamble will pay off, it's a big one. The alternative is for sony to price the machine at an even larger loss than it is now and lose piles and piles of money in the short run, all in order to get the customers they assume they will eventually retain anyhow. If Sony is wrong, then they will lose their dominant position on the market they had with the PS2. But still, fast-forward 1-2 years from now, and the cost of the console in November 2006 won't be a big deal anymore. The only question to me is will the PS3 be a huge success or just a success... the idea that Sony will self-destruct over this is ridiculous.
In every manufacturing process, as time goes on the costs of manufacturing decrease. As volume increases and time passes, the once-newfangled manufacturing processes get more refined and streamlined. As they get better at making the products and make them in larger batches they can drive the costs down. Even if the PS3 ships zero units, in two years all of their gee-whiz-bang components right now like Cell and Blu-Ray will be used in many non-PS3 machines -- so their supply costs will go down to produce the same machine in two years.
That's just how things work -- is that mu assumption or just an observation?
Sony is not going to self-destruct because their console is priced high on release day, it was simply a tactical decision to attempt to capitalize on the willingness of their most eager fans to spend whatever it takes to get one on or near release day. Recall how with many console releases they can sell out the initial batches to the point where it is difficult to find one in a store for the first while? Sony is avoiding that by pricing their console higher on day one, they will make more money from the initial adopters and run less risk of selling out. THEN, when they have ramped up production and can produce more units at lower lost, then they will drop the price to a more reasonable level and all of a sudden the console looks a lot more affordable in comparison with the less-powered consoles from Nintendo and Microsoft.
At least that is the theory. It could easily backfire, as it seems to be doing judging by comments on this and other sites, by having a backlash against the initial price so strong that it actually turns people away from the console and onto the other platforms instead of them waiting for the price of the PS3 to drop as it inevitably will. But still, people are looking at this scene like it's all based on what happens in November and December of this year instead of looking at it like it's a multi-year game. In 1 year, in 2 years, in 3 -- the initial price of the PS3 will not be a big deal anymore.
How it will help: it may stem the tide away from Java that is right now going towards LAMP. There should be little doubt that if Java had been open source from the start, LAMP would have never taken off the way it did -- but LAMP had the advantage of being free and clear distributed with all major Linux distributions and complex solutions could be drawn up around them. It's too late for Sun to turn back the clock by open sourcing Java, but it's not too late for them to realize that Java's acceptance on the Linux market will be helped by having distributers able to include copies free and clear. Red Hat in particular would likely embrace a Sun Java solution as they are hostile towards adopting Mono in RHES and often market Java-based solutions (though with gcj/gjc instead of Sun Java). This would not help Sun directly, but it would help grow the market for server side Java solutions, which is their whole point right?
It works on linux just fine, I just watched a bit of this week's episode of Alias. Install wine, install the windows version firefox under wine, and then install the flash 8.5 beta also under wine. It runs perfectly after that.
I know I know, DRM is a dirty word for slashbots, but hear me out:
If the DRM process was an open spec that anyone could implement, and the creators could dictate the terms of use for their creation, this satisfies your 3 criteria that you laid out in your comment. 1, it allows compensation for creators, a legal player would not be able to display/play content without a key if the creators desire this. 2, the public is not hindered to use their creations, because anyone can create a legal player so long as it respects the DRM. 3, you can design the technology to backup your files and share files as you please -- but they will only function if the player has the correct unique legal key.
Patents and trademarks are other issues and should be dealt with seperately.
It predicts lots of things: the rise of radical religious groups taking control of all branches of government which then impose a specific religious myth on everyone else and slowly erode secular democracy. As it predicts, so it seems to be...
"Is this a bad thing? A few friends and I have found that there are uses for having a set of addresses which only get spam..."
You sir, have obviously never had several thousand emails arrive on your inbox at once, not ceasing for days... causing your spamassassin daemons to go nuts causing cascading failures all over your system as your computer runs out of memory.
It's fun!
That's where I thought Dawkins was going to go, but I was pleasantly surprised to see him veer slightly off message for a bit and come up with something interesting. That said, I agree with you.
I know at one point in the show you've stated that you like to stay away from the "ooga booga" myths, meaning I suppose the ones with a bit of mysticism attached to them. But still, a large percentage of the myths out there actually fall into that category. A good compromise might be doing a Halloween episode in which you dedicate one show to taking on a few of the most tv-friendly "ooga booga" mythbusting. What do you think of this idea?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that in Gnome 2.10 (and maybe the previous release too), even the previously working applications:/// was stripped out. The new menu editor, and the more advanced menu editor smeg, are a very welcome re-addition.
I guess I've been spoiled by using Ubuntu where you only need the one CD to get things working and then download the rest. Can anyone tell me if all four CDs are actually needed?
"I haven't seen SA, but from what I've encountered in GTA (a noble series that it may be), there are no "complex rule systems": just a big sandbox and some simple rules. "New interfaces" are nothing that a bog-standard game controller can do and has done for the last fifteen years, and "multiple objectives" are pretty much ruled out by the straightforward mission structure."
Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about then, eh? Perhaps it would surprise you then to find out that the characterization of the game by the article was absolutely correct. The game is enormous in size and contains a staggering variety of gameplay interactions, each with their own set of unique rules and interfaces.
To complete the game you have to master driving cars, bicycles, big rigs, helicopters, airplanes, harrier jets, hovercraft, jetpacks, and motorbikes. Each of these requires learning and mastering a new skill, some of them are quite difficult to learn. At most points in the game you do have multiple objectives, just as the article states, the mission structure is not straightforward as you choose what part of the game you want to complete next.
Perhaps before you judge something next time you actually do more that make assumptions based on your limited observations. Same advice I'd give Hillary, if she cared.
Actually, avoiding vendor lock-in is precisely the reason why I enjoy using free software. Your arguments about BSODs are bunk, I would say that my poorly supported (by linux) laptop crashes significantly more frequently than Windows ever did. Yet I use it anyway, because of several reasons.
One of the primary reasons I continue to use linux despite my hardware being ill supported is a relative lack of vendor lock-in. I am not forced on a paid upgrade schedule or to a certain vendor. Despite what the consultant said in this article, for my purposes I can take my applications and use them on any number of distributions if I someday become unhappy with my current favourite, Ubuntu.
$21M/28 movies comes to $750K per movie. Which is exactly what the article says the SciFi network paid for each of these movies, with the producers expecting to recoup the remainder of the costs to be recouped via other sales (international, DVD).
What, just because a couple of slashbots agreed with me you think you "won" the argument? It has been shown to you by multiple people in multiple places exactly why you are wrong to try to get distributions to include autopackage by default. I don't need to rehash them here, because you obviously don't care or aren't paying attention to what I (and the people who are better spoken than me) have been repeatedly trying to explain to you. Slander the opposing arguments by calling them "elitist" or whatever you want, but you're still wrong.