Thank you for the Neo Geo comparison, I like the analogy. Flippantly, does this mean that the PS3 will be the console that every 13 year old kid lusts over, but no one ever buys?
I think the PS3 will have a degree of success, but I think that it will be second fiddle to the 360, just like the article says, but in the global market I don't know if the Wii will be far third. Globally the GameCube is in 2nd right now to the PS2, why would this be any different now? I think there even is a chance in hell of the Wii killing both competitors in Japan.
I think the main thing the Wii has going against it is Nintendo's false association with kiddie games (like someone is going to let their kids play RE4).
I used to be pretty good at Q3 with a trackball, it was startling how easy "gross" (such as a 180) were, but finer aiming and such required much practice. For awhile I even managed to play my FPSs with a touch-pad, which was a total pain in the butt (though tap shooting was nice).
For the past couple years I've been using a decent optical mouse though. I wanted a scroll wheel and buttons for my non-gaming life, and they didn't have a decent left-handed trackball that could handle that demand (no, I refuse to use a right handed mouse/tack-pad). The mouse is MUCH better at finer motions and aiming, though the gross motion suffers a bit. A mouse is definitely the preferred way to go, in the end.
While hate is a rather strong term for OS/Browser choice, it is perfectly valid not to like certain things. Browser/OS is a matter of preference, I would rather, for example, not ever have to venture into Windows land and use IE, and I really can't stand KDE. This is perfectly valid. I don't see how it is possible to even conisder things equally beyond the preferential aspect, I can clearly state that Windows is inferior to the *nix OSs in almost everyway that counts, technological, UI, security. This too is valid.
Now to the matter at hand, disliking IE is a perfectly valid POV too, since IE does amount to nothing but a security flaw, with 10 year old standards strapped to it, and a sub-par UI. IE7 doesn't seem to address the fundamental problems with IE (IE needs to be scrapped, and build from scratch using KHTML or Gecko, IMHO). The same can be said for Windows, almost exactly, Vista doesn't seem to fix anything, there is something conceptually rotten in the state of Washington (Redmond more specifically), that a mere rework won't fix.
In the end we hate Windows/IE for their own good. How many fixes has MS had to impliment because of the compition? If Firefox wasn't around would they have felt the need to make the effort to fix IE (both SP2 and IE7)? How many changes in Windows have come about because of the use of OS X and other *nix OSs? How much of the use of alt browsers and OSs are fueled by rabid distaste for the MS philosophy?
I'm so sick of computers looking out for what is perceived to be my best interests. On the flip side these "features" wouldn't exist if the average Joe didn't actually need them. Even Safari bugs me when I download programs.
The really need to ship OSs with a switch that allows me to pick "expert" mode, where it doesn't ask me if I'm sure of anything, since if I wasn't sure, I wouldn't be doing it.
When I was running XP, I did manage a spam of 3 years without a single virus, or major flaw of external origin (until I connected to a campus network), mainly though generally intelligent and common sensical policies (no IE, or Outlook).
What about non-pop music? Music such as jazz, electronic, and experimental generally are very very light on vocals, and thus not the best medium for product placement, and product placement would generally not do anything to enrich the music as art. The previous is an important point, some artists view what their doing (creating music) as ART, one of my favorite experimental jazz bands come to mind, Tortoise. I don't think profit is first and foremost in their eyes, or everyone would sound like Britanny Spears, or some other talentless music-by-formula hip-hop crap. I can just picture this release; "Drink Coke Because it is Good For You String Quatet in E-Minor". Also I'm sure there are many band out there that might be ethically opposed to MORE advertisment, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist either. Product placement is great for pop or "gangsta" rap, but I don't think many mature music listeners would really go for it.
Perhaps (please insert sarcasm) thats the goal, brainwash them earlier, and they will have no taste later in life, and thus think that constantly being nothing more than mindshare is acceptable taste or talent be damned.
People, thankfully, are already getting sick of the constant barrage of advertisment. I know many people like me who eschew them at all costs (even if it means no TV, or MLB ballgames, or local radio). They have come to become intrusive and ubiquitous in all areas, from mens rooms to school buses, the world is becoming a spam ridden e-mail inbox, and people are developing psychological means to block out all the superfluous attempts at brainwashing (what is most advertisment but attempted brainwashing?). Look at the success of Google for this, you were already looking for something, and thus advertisments can be helpful, but ONLY if targetted, and ONLY if helpful and non-obtrusive. And fallacious reasoning aside, listing to Gansta White-Boy 5000 does not imply that I want to drink Bud Light, or drive a Hummer. Though perhaps listening to Britanny Spears should imply that I should wear a Trojan.
Perhaps the future we are trying to bring about should be on that is ad free, where word of mouth (as spured by actual merit) is the preference.
Perhaps DRM isn't as bad as the alternative, and spending money on things you like isn't that bad of an idea (it has worked for most of civilized history after all).
Being anti-**AA doesn't imply that someone is against selling an artistic product, or supporting artists with you pocket book. I don't see the connection. The technology exists for artists to eschew the **AA and distribute via services like iTMS for a small cost, most of which would go to them. Sadly because egotistical wanks supported by weak ad hoc rationals DRM is necissary as a step. Just because there is no trade associations, does not make product placement a necessity, there are plenty of ways to pay for music (and support artists) without the **AAs.
First, as a male, I do buy music. Actually right now I'm trying to figure how to reget my music I bought on iTMS after a HD crash. I like buying music, it supports artists. (Music won't be free, product placement only works for Gansta rap and crap like it, more on that later). Yes, I have stolen music, like when the new Mike Patton CD came out (Peeping Tom) I did use pirate bay to grab it, but bought it less than a week later when I got money. Why? Because I like the artist enough to want him to make more albums and projects. (The fact that the label isn't part of an **AA helps, too). With services such as iTMS most juvenile arguments for piracy died, reguardless of gender. (Yes, some of you hate DRM, I am a/. rarity for not minding it too much, it seems a necessity for technology leading us in the right direction).
Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free.
No, downloaders are like everyone else, they want something for free. Its easier, its cheaper, its immediately gratifying, its a nice Western character flaw. Petty theives know the prerfect price for a candy bar too, it also is free. Yes, now you will give me a half baked argument against the analogy, such as these people wouldn't have bought it anyway, or that 90% of modern (pop) music is not worth buying, or no one deprived of any goods in the digital sense. Please, getting something that costed someone something to produce for nothing, against the producers will is theft, especially when there are cheap ways to actually pay. Yes, this system might have some flaws ideologically, but it is the best we have right now, and far better than your product placement idea. And if your going to make this point from an ideological stance of protest, at least show how adamant you are by abstaining, and not just doing a half-assed boycott (in effect telling them how desirable their product still is).
That was a tangent, sorry. Ignore at will, since it is not the thrust of my post.
Basically with your product placement point you are saying that we should degrade the general quality of cinema so you do not have to pay for it. Product placement generally detracts from the quality of movies (plase remember Taco Bell and Judge Dredd from the 90's, or even the startlingly obvious placements in I, Robot), and generally doesn't nearly enough cash input to fund a large release. Also this idea would crush the indie market, since they have dubious appeal for wide audiences, documentaries will also be hurt in a massive way (imagine the makers of Supersize This going before corporate sponsors, what should they do emphasize Burger King?).
Your linkage between Hollywood and music is weak. Do you really want to listen to people extoll the virtues of Diet Coke next time you listen to music?
Remember when home PC's went from Win95/98 to ME? Remember all the hype and hysteria about the requirements back then?
1. My desktop was a lot less stable. 2. The computer OS and games actually ran a lot slower. 3. Need I remind everyone who's feeding us this info on Vista? The CRASHES. Nuff said.
So now Apple will be seen as the pretty OS that runs on less? A Mac with half the premium requirements can run OS X rather well, and is still very shiny, albeit it does run into the OS X RAM issue.
I wonder if hardware costs of running Vista will exceed the Mac tax...
You forgot an element needed to people to actually want to use it, usability. People want a simple search engine, which is (in part) why Google reached ascendancy in the search engine market. With the goliath of the pre-google days (Yahoo) you had to actually work to find what your looking for, scroll down and find the right category, etc... People don't want to select nodes, or spend any amount of time on the results page, they just want to find and move on with the least amount of work or time. And on this front, Google is good enough. You must also balance simplicity with precision, especially for a mass market app.
I really don't have a big beef with Googles accuracy, it seems, again, good enough, on this point. Generally what I'm looking for is on the front page, generally in the top five. So no real complaints there. When I am hunting for more esoteric things, though there is a slight dip in this precision, so perhaps a learning algorithm would be a prefered approach.
Google also has a problem (still) with irrelevant data, such as message threads and blogs. I don't know how they would get around this, though, since one man's junk is another treasure.
Another aspect in this, is nontechnical. Buzz. Right now Google has the household word going for it, it is a reflexive aspect right now, in that people go to it without thinking. Most of the gains in user base in the other search engines also come from marketing, and not technology.
Wow, I was expecting a flame, and I found a moderate. Good. I would watch out, though, the "R" word is verbotten here in/., it seems. Life is a big shade of grey though, so I never trust any name ideology, since they seem to all be based on erroneous assumptions on how how humans actually function.
I'm defending Marx, and not the ism, btw. Marx was just a man working within the framework of Hegel, except with a more economic view of inevitable progress. He was just trying to say what the landscape of an inevitable future would appear as, much like Hegel's innevitable (and mythological) humanist utopia. And on certain points (mostly in On Capital he is correct on the exploitation inherent in capitalism, not his later works (such as the Manifesto) as much though.
I have no pretense of an actual solution to anything though. I don't think any one does, especially the tech geeks of/., since the problems are so complex, with so many issues to consider (from economic, to humanitarian), much compromise would be needed in any actual policy decisions of the future, and it seems that compromise is a wea point in human decisions. Sometimes I doubt that there is a fix to anything, just problems which we must live with, and bitch about on forums.
Come up with a way to change how people vote. Come up with a way to move power back down to local levels (which makes Congressional positions worth less) and you've got a winner.
Bingo! Well 3/4th Bingo, actually. I think there does need to be some central power, how else would we regulate international trade in the first place, but for the most part there does need to be more local policies (for other reasons, mostly).
The first premise though is the golden one. Some how people have to start caring, or at least become aware of the problems. Even if I disagree with a person I value the fact that they have an opinion and at least know the problem, a rarity it seems today.
But how to turn the statement of problems into to solution is the problem. HOW do we change how people vote, how do we even (first) make them care?
Just that technology moves on and there has to come a point in time when you have to go for the next generation of products.
Sometimes I worry about this. While I'm not a luddite per se, sometimes I wonder if we are a little bit too tech obsessed. Yeah, its/., so I must be too, by definition, but I don't see the benefit of Blu-Ray making up for its cost right now. Though I guess releasing it does no harm, if worse comes to worse it will be like mini-disks of old. lauded but unused.
*And I find many of the current games lacking..* Lets hope that bigger resources of the next gen consoles improves that aspect, at least.
Which is why I'm going for the badly named Wii. Say what you will about Nintendo, they seem to have the most innovative line up. The 360 is more of the same, and I have no idea what the PS3 will actually look like, so I have to go by reputation.
I had this argument with a polisci friend of mine, and she won.
First, to be brief, who owns the governments?
Corporations are actually the bigger targets since they are less accountable than governments when it comes to international affairs. How do you regulate something that doesn't exist within anyone's borders? Yes, I'm sure Nike (or Ford) now has a nice PO Box in the states, and maybe a couple hundred office workers, but their full entity exists in various other places, and they could easily move.
Sure, put pressure on Congress, but guess who pays for them to be in office? People have proven that they will vote for whoever has more money (=ad time), so money becomes the issue. And no one here has enough to compare to corporate sponsors in any meaningful way. Perhaps when America has educated and freethinking voters the problem will solve itself.
Your comment is rather ambigious, but that might just be due to my lack of coffee.
So if your being pro-Marx please append the term against someplace in there, since Marx was against the inherent dehumanizing and exploitive nature of a capitalist model.
If your anti-Marx please go back and read "On Capital" and notice that he does have some very good points. Yes, some facists have stolen his name and turned his original philosophy into tyrannical regimes (hence Marx being quoted "I am not a Marxist") when the communists started turning his dialectic (as in Hegel) eventuality into a practical political movement.
Marx never endorsed removing "the choice of work" he just was against the humans as means aspect of it, where all we are is another utility payment, and completely divorced from the fruit of our effort.
Please remember Marx never meant his philosophy to be something that one strives for, it was a historical end point (again, like Hegel).
Yes, new super-duper DVD formats do have some nice niche uses and convenience, they really are pointless to 90% of us. I don't think that HDTV has a good enough penetration to warrent many people actually spending on it, that and most of us have just recently managed to aquire most of their movies on DVD, collecting another format will just be an annoyance. The new DVD formats are just going to be a question of buzz gimmick, and not an actual technical need like the original DVD.
As for games, I don't really notice graphics after the initial "wow" moment, which fades once the game play either sells me, or not.
Its not a question of wanting Sony dead, its more an issue of watching Sony kill itself. The PS3 could be the greatest console ever, and it still is not a prudent business move. No one really wants to fork over $600 for a console, especially when the compitition offers more than adequate alternatives for half the price or less.
And my major beef is that the "pushing the technology envelope" syndrome is idiotic. There is no need for Blu-Ray, except to force a fake tech trend, and make all of us go by new hardware for massive cash. I know people who have just finally upgraded to DVD, and why ever would they want to spend more on something that is pretty much a DVD?
Also, it seems that the PS3 is pretty much nothing but paperware right now, I wouldn't be suprised if they released a C-64 in a pretty case instead of whatever they are promising today (as opposed to yesterday).
Unlike the last console release war, Sony has no buzz. Last time they were the winner before all 3 were released even, now I think they might be taking the (underestimated) Gamecube's place in the market. Not that I really care that much, I'm just going to buy a Revoltion (or the *shudder* Wii), since buying Nintendo at least guarantees fun and innovative games with little hastle.
Err... and how are patents analgous to bombs? I think your only slightly over reacting.
Yes there are BAD patents, but then there are tons and tons of valid patents, and this seems to be just another valid one, and one that hasn't seen a lick of activity in 6 years.
Perhaps in this case a better analogy would be guns. Good in the hands of hunters and normal folk, but bad in the hands of others.
What I hear is that most influencial politicos (and influencial PoliSci academics) take the view that most of the population do not know what is in their own best interest, and the job of the politician is to look out for the public's best interest (even if the public does not agree). Some issues, as goes their reasoning, are too complex or nuanced for the lay public to understand or to form a rational opinion on. Also the people's whims and wishes might not be constructive for society as a whole.
Thus it can be seen, in this paradigm, that "minor" privacy infringments serve to protect the people as a whole, which outweighs the violation against a minority of the republic.
Please note that I don't fully agree with this. There is a small degree of validity behind this though, being that most people don't care about what is good for everyone, and only care about their immediate urges.
I still think that this view is dangerous when taken to excess, especially when it leads to massive rights violations.
I don't think that/. is as much a unitary voting block as you think it is. At first glance it appears that/. is a direct split between the vocal pro-privacy, anti-war libertarians, and the pro-privacy, anti-war liberals, but I would hazzard to guess that at least a 3rd of/.ers are pro-war, pro-snooping conservatives. I'm sure they are lurking around, posting in non-political forums in fear of -1 Groupthink mods.
I'm also guessing that a very large population of/. are political apathetics, here just for gaming and BeOS news, or whatnot. Sadly, I'm guessing, that the nonvoting crowd on/. might be larger than the sadly huge numbers of the general public. Seriously, how many/.ers want to leave the security of their mother's basement to vote?
Actually, in Arizona the case the grandparent describes is the law. You cannot, as a clerk, sell alcohol or tobacco products to anyone who is with people under the legal age. Meaning anyone who you entered the store with, or are in line with, are subject of being carded. There is a rather steep fine for not doing this too.
This has lead to some very annoying problems though.
One night I was in Phoenix visiting some friends I haven't seen in several years, all of them far over 21. We stopped by a liquor store on our way back from dinner, it was the kind with just an outside window for after hours purchases. While we were walking up, and group of teenaged inner-city "urban" youth came up at the same time. They then refused to sell us cigarettes because we were "with" these kids. Though a quick glance would tell any clerk that we had nothing to do with them, a fact helped by the fact that we both came from different sources (us from a car 10 feet way, them from across the freeway). It was absurd.
I am partly out of the loop of the "new english", it seems the labels that people apply to themselves are rapidly accelerating, and increasing at a rate that I can no longer keep up with. Meaning my command of self-labels have stopped someplace in the mid-90's. And, perhaps I am a bit reactionary in this, I have gotten sick of everything changing its name because someone might be offended (generally a decision made by insecure white males, not by what ever group that would take offence).
If a word is used in humor, I do find it hard to see the offence. The tag here wasn't used as a "gay bash", or anything else of duragatory nature. It was using the word in a more common use way, and not in a cultural insult way. As you are gay do you mind if I ask if you were authentically offended, or offended because one ought to be offended? By this distinction I mean, what it a gut reaction, a non-thinking offence. Or was it just a conditioned response that one ought to be offended by the term "gay"?
About 5 years ago, one of my best friends came out of the closet, and this did make all of his friends quite happy, and him happy as well. There was very little fallout from this action. I generally still call him a "queer", or my "little gay friend" (he's short), and never intend any insult in this, and he knows it too. He generally retaliates by insulting my straightness. Some of his SO's have took offense for him though, which is obnoxious, since I don't joke with them in the same way (right off, until I know they have a good sense of humor) so it has nothing to do with them.
I think the problem is a cultural backlash against how serious every "special interest" (I use this for lack of a better word) takes their labels. People are getting sick of words becoming so powerful and sacred at the expense of good humor. Its getting to the point where everyone must watch what they say to every person of "special interest" membership carefully, or they might offend. As opposed to any natural equality, we have forced equality, which builds resentment, and a sense of a new form of inequality in that we notice more and more difference only for the purpose of non-offence. So of course people are going to reject this. I do.
But then again I like sexist, racist, anti-gay humor, while being pretty much okay with everyone individually (while many cultures are beginning to miff me). I realize the difference between humor and reality. Between mere words and reality. We give language to much power these days. Everyone should just relax./rant
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the Neo Geo comparison, I like the analogy. Flippantly, does this mean that the PS3 will be the console that every 13 year old kid lusts over, but no one ever buys?
I think the PS3 will have a degree of success, but I think that it will be second fiddle to the 360, just like the article says, but in the global market I don't know if the Wii will be far third. Globally the GameCube is in 2nd right now to the PS2, why would this be any different now? I think there even is a chance in hell of the Wii killing both competitors in Japan.
I think the main thing the Wii has going against it is Nintendo's false association with kiddie games (like someone is going to let their kids play RE4).
Not an expert here, but it is fun to think about.
I used to be pretty good at Q3 with a trackball, it was startling how easy "gross" (such as a 180) were, but finer aiming and such required much practice. For awhile I even managed to play my FPSs with a touch-pad, which was a total pain in the butt (though tap shooting was nice).
For the past couple years I've been using a decent optical mouse though. I wanted a scroll wheel and buttons for my non-gaming life, and they didn't have a decent left-handed trackball that could handle that demand (no, I refuse to use a right handed mouse/tack-pad). The mouse is MUCH better at finer motions and aiming, though the gross motion suffers a bit. A mouse is definitely the preferred way to go, in the end.
While hate is a rather strong term for OS/Browser choice, it is perfectly valid not to like certain things. Browser/OS is a matter of preference, I would rather, for example, not ever have to venture into Windows land and use IE, and I really can't stand KDE. This is perfectly valid. I don't see how it is possible to even conisder things equally beyond the preferential aspect, I can clearly state that Windows is inferior to the *nix OSs in almost everyway that counts, technological, UI, security. This too is valid.
Now to the matter at hand, disliking IE is a perfectly valid POV too, since IE does amount to nothing but a security flaw, with 10 year old standards strapped to it, and a sub-par UI. IE7 doesn't seem to address the fundamental problems with IE (IE needs to be scrapped, and build from scratch using KHTML or Gecko, IMHO). The same can be said for Windows, almost exactly, Vista doesn't seem to fix anything, there is something conceptually rotten in the state of Washington (Redmond more specifically), that a mere rework won't fix.
In the end we hate Windows/IE for their own good. How many fixes has MS had to impliment because of the compition? If Firefox wasn't around would they have felt the need to make the effort to fix IE (both SP2 and IE7)? How many changes in Windows have come about because of the use of OS X and other *nix OSs? How much of the use of alt browsers and OSs are fueled by rabid distaste for the MS philosophy?
I'm so sick of computers looking out for what is perceived to be my best interests. On the flip side these "features" wouldn't exist if the average Joe didn't actually need them. Even Safari bugs me when I download programs.
The really need to ship OSs with a switch that allows me to pick "expert" mode, where it doesn't ask me if I'm sure of anything, since if I wasn't sure, I wouldn't be doing it.
When I was running XP, I did manage a spam of 3 years without a single virus, or major flaw of external origin (until I connected to a campus network), mainly though generally intelligent and common sensical policies (no IE, or Outlook).
The countermeasure: film.
What about non-pop music? Music such as jazz, electronic, and experimental generally are very very light on vocals, and thus not the best medium for product placement, and product placement would generally not do anything to enrich the music as art. The previous is an important point, some artists view what their doing (creating music) as ART, one of my favorite experimental jazz bands come to mind, Tortoise. I don't think profit is first and foremost in their eyes, or everyone would sound like Britanny Spears, or some other talentless music-by-formula hip-hop crap. I can just picture this release; "Drink Coke Because it is Good For You String Quatet in E-Minor". Also I'm sure there are many band out there that might be ethically opposed to MORE advertisment, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist either. Product placement is great for pop or "gangsta" rap, but I don't think many mature music listeners would really go for it.
Perhaps (please insert sarcasm) thats the goal, brainwash them earlier, and they will have no taste later in life, and thus think that constantly being nothing more than mindshare is acceptable taste or talent be damned.
People, thankfully, are already getting sick of the constant barrage of advertisment. I know many people like me who eschew them at all costs (even if it means no TV, or MLB ballgames, or local radio). They have come to become intrusive and ubiquitous in all areas, from mens rooms to school buses, the world is becoming a spam ridden e-mail inbox, and people are developing psychological means to block out all the superfluous attempts at brainwashing (what is most advertisment but attempted brainwashing?). Look at the success of Google for this, you were already looking for something, and thus advertisments can be helpful, but ONLY if targetted, and ONLY if helpful and non-obtrusive. And fallacious reasoning aside, listing to Gansta White-Boy 5000 does not imply that I want to drink Bud Light, or drive a Hummer. Though perhaps listening to Britanny Spears should imply that I should wear a Trojan.
Perhaps the future we are trying to bring about should be on that is ad free, where word of mouth (as spured by actual merit) is the preference.
Perhaps DRM isn't as bad as the alternative, and spending money on things you like isn't that bad of an idea (it has worked for most of civilized history after all).
Being anti-**AA doesn't imply that someone is against selling an artistic product, or supporting artists with you pocket book. I don't see the connection. The technology exists for artists to eschew the **AA and distribute via services like iTMS for a small cost, most of which would go to them. Sadly because egotistical wanks supported by weak ad hoc rationals DRM is necissary as a step. Just because there is no trade associations, does not make product placement a necessity, there are plenty of ways to pay for music (and support artists) without the **AAs.
First, as a male, I do buy music. Actually right now I'm trying to figure how to reget my music I bought on iTMS after a HD crash. I like buying music, it supports artists. (Music won't be free, product placement only works for Gansta rap and crap like it, more on that later). Yes, I have stolen music, like when the new Mike Patton CD came out (Peeping Tom) I did use pirate bay to grab it, but bought it less than a week later when I got money. Why? Because I like the artist enough to want him to make more albums and projects. (The fact that the label isn't part of an **AA helps, too). With services such as iTMS most juvenile arguments for piracy died, reguardless of gender. (Yes, some of you hate DRM, I am a /. rarity for not minding it too much, it seems a necessity for technology leading us in the right direction).
Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free.
No, downloaders are like everyone else, they want something for free. Its easier, its cheaper, its immediately gratifying, its a nice Western character flaw. Petty theives know the prerfect price for a candy bar too, it also is free. Yes, now you will give me a half baked argument against the analogy, such as these people wouldn't have bought it anyway, or that 90% of modern (pop) music is not worth buying, or no one deprived of any goods in the digital sense. Please, getting something that costed someone something to produce for nothing, against the producers will is theft, especially when there are cheap ways to actually pay. Yes, this system might have some flaws ideologically, but it is the best we have right now, and far better than your product placement idea. And if your going to make this point from an ideological stance of protest, at least show how adamant you are by abstaining, and not just doing a half-assed boycott (in effect telling them how desirable their product still is).
That was a tangent, sorry. Ignore at will, since it is not the thrust of my post.
Basically with your product placement point you are saying that we should degrade the general quality of cinema so you do not have to pay for it. Product placement generally detracts from the quality of movies (plase remember Taco Bell and Judge Dredd from the 90's, or even the startlingly obvious placements in I, Robot), and generally doesn't nearly enough cash input to fund a large release. Also this idea would crush the indie market, since they have dubious appeal for wide audiences, documentaries will also be hurt in a massive way (imagine the makers of Supersize This going before corporate sponsors, what should they do emphasize Burger King?).
Your linkage between Hollywood and music is weak. Do you really want to listen to people extoll the virtues of Diet Coke next time you listen to music?
Remember when home PC's went from Win95/98 to ME? Remember all the hype and hysteria about the requirements back then?
1. My desktop was a lot less stable.
2. The computer OS and games actually ran a lot slower.
3. Need I remind everyone who's feeding us this info on Vista? The CRASHES. Nuff said.
So now Apple will be seen as the pretty OS that runs on less? A Mac with half the premium requirements can run OS X rather well, and is still very shiny, albeit it does run into the OS X RAM issue.
I wonder if hardware costs of running Vista will exceed the Mac tax...
You forgot an element needed to people to actually want to use it, usability. People want a simple search engine, which is (in part) why Google reached ascendancy in the search engine market. With the goliath of the pre-google days (Yahoo) you had to actually work to find what your looking for, scroll down and find the right category, etc... People don't want to select nodes, or spend any amount of time on the results page, they just want to find and move on with the least amount of work or time. And on this front, Google is good enough. You must also balance simplicity with precision, especially for a mass market app.
I really don't have a big beef with Googles accuracy, it seems, again, good enough, on this point. Generally what I'm looking for is on the front page, generally in the top five. So no real complaints there. When I am hunting for more esoteric things, though there is a slight dip in this precision, so perhaps a learning algorithm would be a prefered approach.
Google also has a problem (still) with irrelevant data, such as message threads and blogs. I don't know how they would get around this, though, since one man's junk is another treasure.
Another aspect in this, is nontechnical. Buzz. Right now Google has the household word going for it, it is a reflexive aspect right now, in that people go to it without thinking. Most of the gains in user base in the other search engines also come from marketing, and not technology.
This leads to only one possible conclusion, DNF is Windows Vista...
Wow, I was expecting a flame, and I found a moderate. Good. I would watch out, though, the "R" word is verbotten here in /., it seems. Life is a big shade of grey though, so I never trust any name ideology, since they seem to all be based on erroneous assumptions on how how humans actually function.
/., since the problems are so complex, with so many issues to consider (from economic, to humanitarian), much compromise would be needed in any actual policy decisions of the future, and it seems that compromise is a wea point in human decisions. Sometimes I doubt that there is a fix to anything, just problems which we must live with, and bitch about on forums.
I'm defending Marx, and not the ism, btw. Marx was just a man working within the framework of Hegel, except with a more economic view of inevitable progress. He was just trying to say what the landscape of an inevitable future would appear as, much like Hegel's innevitable (and mythological) humanist utopia. And on certain points (mostly in On Capital he is correct on the exploitation inherent in capitalism, not his later works (such as the Manifesto) as much though.
I have no pretense of an actual solution to anything though. I don't think any one does, especially the tech geeks of
Fun fact, any political or economic system will be rife with corruption in a generation or two.
Corruption is as human as bipedalism, it seems.
Come up with a way to change how people vote. Come up with a way to move power back down to local levels (which makes Congressional positions worth less) and you've got a winner.
Bingo! Well 3/4th Bingo, actually. I think there does need to be some central power, how else would we regulate international trade in the first place, but for the most part there does need to be more local policies (for other reasons, mostly).
The first premise though is the golden one. Some how people have to start caring, or at least become aware of the problems. Even if I disagree with a person I value the fact that they have an opinion and at least know the problem, a rarity it seems today.
But how to turn the statement of problems into to solution is the problem. HOW do we change how people vote, how do we even (first) make them care?
Just that technology moves on and there has to come a point in time when you have to go for the next generation of products.
/., so I must be too, by definition, but I don't see the benefit of Blu-Ray making up for its cost right now. Though I guess releasing it does no harm, if worse comes to worse it will be like mini-disks of old. lauded but unused.
Sometimes I worry about this. While I'm not a luddite per se, sometimes I wonder if we are a little bit too tech obsessed. Yeah, its
*And I find many of the current games lacking..* Lets hope that bigger resources of the next gen consoles improves that aspect, at least.
Which is why I'm going for the badly named Wii. Say what you will about Nintendo, they seem to have the most innovative line up. The 360 is more of the same, and I have no idea what the PS3 will actually look like, so I have to go by reputation.
I had this argument with a polisci friend of mine, and she won.
First, to be brief, who owns the governments?
Corporations are actually the bigger targets since they are less accountable than governments when it comes to international affairs. How do you regulate something that doesn't exist within anyone's borders? Yes, I'm sure Nike (or Ford) now has a nice PO Box in the states, and maybe a couple hundred office workers, but their full entity exists in various other places, and they could easily move.
Sure, put pressure on Congress, but guess who pays for them to be in office? People have proven that they will vote for whoever has more money (=ad time), so money becomes the issue. And no one here has enough to compare to corporate sponsors in any meaningful way. Perhaps when America has educated and freethinking voters the problem will solve itself.
Your comment is rather ambigious, but that might just be due to my lack of coffee.
So if your being pro-Marx please append the term against someplace in there, since Marx was against the inherent dehumanizing and exploitive nature of a capitalist model.
If your anti-Marx please go back and read "On Capital" and notice that he does have some very good points. Yes, some facists have stolen his name and turned his original philosophy into tyrannical regimes (hence Marx being quoted "I am not a Marxist") when the communists started turning his dialectic (as in Hegel) eventuality into a practical political movement.
Marx never endorsed removing "the choice of work" he just was against the humans as means aspect of it, where all we are is another utility payment, and completely divorced from the fruit of our effort.
Please remember Marx never meant his philosophy to be something that one strives for, it was a historical end point (again, like Hegel).
Yes, new super-duper DVD formats do have some nice niche uses and convenience, they really are pointless to 90% of us. I don't think that HDTV has a good enough penetration to warrent many people actually spending on it, that and most of us have just recently managed to aquire most of their movies on DVD, collecting another format will just be an annoyance. The new DVD formats are just going to be a question of buzz gimmick, and not an actual technical need like the original DVD.
As for games, I don't really notice graphics after the initial "wow" moment, which fades once the game play either sells me, or not.
Its not a question of wanting Sony dead, its more an issue of watching Sony kill itself. The PS3 could be the greatest console ever, and it still is not a prudent business move. No one really wants to fork over $600 for a console, especially when the compitition offers more than adequate alternatives for half the price or less.
And my major beef is that the "pushing the technology envelope" syndrome is idiotic. There is no need for Blu-Ray, except to force a fake tech trend, and make all of us go by new hardware for massive cash. I know people who have just finally upgraded to DVD, and why ever would they want to spend more on something that is pretty much a DVD?
Also, it seems that the PS3 is pretty much nothing but paperware right now, I wouldn't be suprised if they released a C-64 in a pretty case instead of whatever they are promising today (as opposed to yesterday).
Unlike the last console release war, Sony has no buzz. Last time they were the winner before all 3 were released even, now I think they might be taking the (underestimated) Gamecube's place in the market. Not that I really care that much, I'm just going to buy a Revoltion (or the *shudder* Wii), since buying Nintendo at least guarantees fun and innovative games with little hastle.
Err... and how are patents analgous to bombs? I think your only slightly over reacting.
Yes there are BAD patents, but then there are tons and tons of valid patents, and this seems to be just another valid one, and one that hasn't seen a lick of activity in 6 years.
Perhaps in this case a better analogy would be guns. Good in the hands of hunters and normal folk, but bad in the hands of others.
What I hear is that most influencial politicos (and influencial PoliSci academics) take the view that most of the population do not know what is in their own best interest, and the job of the politician is to look out for the public's best interest (even if the public does not agree). Some issues, as goes their reasoning, are too complex or nuanced for the lay public to understand or to form a rational opinion on. Also the people's whims and wishes might not be constructive for society as a whole.
Thus it can be seen, in this paradigm, that "minor" privacy infringments serve to protect the people as a whole, which outweighs the violation against a minority of the republic.
Please note that I don't fully agree with this. There is a small degree of validity behind this though, being that most people don't care about what is good for everyone, and only care about their immediate urges.
I still think that this view is dangerous when taken to excess, especially when it leads to massive rights violations.
I don't think that /. is as much a unitary voting block as you think it is. At first glance it appears that /. is a direct split between the vocal pro-privacy, anti-war libertarians, and the pro-privacy, anti-war liberals, but I would hazzard to guess that at least a 3rd of /.ers are pro-war, pro-snooping conservatives. I'm sure they are lurking around, posting in non-political forums in fear of -1 Groupthink mods.
/. are political apathetics, here just for gaming and BeOS news, or whatnot. Sadly, I'm guessing, that the nonvoting crowd on /. might be larger than the sadly huge numbers of the general public. Seriously, how many /.ers want to leave the security of their mother's basement to vote?
I'm also guessing that a very large population of
Actually, in Arizona the case the grandparent describes is the law. You cannot, as a clerk, sell alcohol or tobacco products to anyone who is with people under the legal age. Meaning anyone who you entered the store with, or are in line with, are subject of being carded. There is a rather steep fine for not doing this too.
This has lead to some very annoying problems though.
One night I was in Phoenix visiting some friends I haven't seen in several years, all of them far over 21. We stopped by a liquor store on our way back from dinner, it was the kind with just an outside window for after hours purchases. While we were walking up, and group of teenaged inner-city "urban" youth came up at the same time. They then refused to sell us cigarettes because we were "with" these kids. Though a quick glance would tell any clerk that we had nothing to do with them, a fact helped by the fact that we both came from different sources (us from a car 10 feet way, them from across the freeway). It was absurd.
This is getting more and more dead-horse-like.
/rant
I am partly out of the loop of the "new english", it seems the labels that people apply to themselves are rapidly accelerating, and increasing at a rate that I can no longer keep up with. Meaning my command of self-labels have stopped someplace in the mid-90's. And, perhaps I am a bit reactionary in this, I have gotten sick of everything changing its name because someone might be offended (generally a decision made by insecure white males, not by what ever group that would take offence).
If a word is used in humor, I do find it hard to see the offence. The tag here wasn't used as a "gay bash", or anything else of duragatory nature. It was using the word in a more common use way, and not in a cultural insult way. As you are gay do you mind if I ask if you were authentically offended, or offended because one ought to be offended? By this distinction I mean, what it a gut reaction, a non-thinking offence. Or was it just a conditioned response that one ought to be offended by the term "gay"?
About 5 years ago, one of my best friends came out of the closet, and this did make all of his friends quite happy, and him happy as well. There was very little fallout from this action. I generally still call him a "queer", or my "little gay friend" (he's short), and never intend any insult in this, and he knows it too. He generally retaliates by insulting my straightness. Some of his SO's have took offense for him though, which is obnoxious, since I don't joke with them in the same way (right off, until I know they have a good sense of humor) so it has nothing to do with them.
I think the problem is a cultural backlash against how serious every "special interest" (I use this for lack of a better word) takes their labels. People are getting sick of words becoming so powerful and sacred at the expense of good humor. Its getting to the point where everyone must watch what they say to every person of "special interest" membership carefully, or they might offend. As opposed to any natural equality, we have forced equality, which builds resentment, and a sense of a new form of inequality in that we notice more and more difference only for the purpose of non-offence. So of course people are going to reject this. I do.
But then again I like sexist, racist, anti-gay humor, while being pretty much okay with everyone individually (while many cultures are beginning to miff me). I realize the difference between humor and reality. Between mere words and reality. We give language to much power these days. Everyone should just relax.
A UNIPORN?!
Oh... wait... OMG!!!1 PoNies!!!
Thanks...
That was "gay", in the nonduragatory, original definition way.