If I wasn't going to pay for it anyways, does that arguement still hold up?... Granted, downloading something instead of buying isn't exactly ethical, but there's a difference between downloading something and stealing it.
You've bit the classic argument hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately you're wrong. Yes, the picture does get muddled when digital data is in the equation. However, most of the value of the CD lies in the music that is on it, not the CD itself. That same value lies in the download, but in most cases the person who created the value sees no return. This is wrong.
Not that it matters for the sake of the arguement, but shoplifting is quite common.
Come on, realise the comparison. I know shoplifting happens, I'm not denying that. However, how many people do you know who shoplift routinely? Probably 1 or 2, if any at all. How many people do you know who download music off P2P sites routinely? I'd bet a good percentage of all the people you know.
The number of shoplifters are dwarfed, to the point of humiliation, by the number of people you download off P2P networks.
Actually, customers started downloading music because they wanted their music digitally and there was no legal alternative.
Excellent point, and the RIAA made a bad business decision when they ignored the demand. However, if you want change, you need to talk with your money in not spending it. As soon as you infringe upon the RIAAs distribution rights, you give up any voice you could have had. To make change, you need to stay on this side of the law and refuse to buy new music until its available as you want it.
And that's not even getting into how the the RIAA treats the artists, or that many people who use P2P are downloading songs they already have, will buy, or things that are not copyrighted or are not for sale.
Again, all valid points. There are very good uses for P2P networks and the RIAA is not always justified in its actions. But, they do hold the rights they are attempting to maintain.
You have it backwards. We, the people, are the ones with rights. Not the MPAA. Not the RIAA.
You've fallen for the most blatant lie that gets brought up in these debates. You have no rights to the music, unless you have purchased it. It is the artist that holds all the rights, as it was their creation. The RIAA is an industry group set-up to gain power in numbers. Hence, artists will occasionally give up certain rights for other benefits, and grant the RIAA those rights. The RIAA has more rights to the music than a customer who has not purchased it. End of story.
Now, I agree that the RIAA has abused certain powers and does not operate in the most benevolent way. I also think they should go away and the artists should seek a different form of distribution.
However, it wjould still be the artists who will hold copyrights. By purchasing a CD, download, etc. you are buying individual rights to listen to it as you see fit, but limited to you and others in your household. Under different mechanisms, artists could be more liberal, but that is pure speculation.
If you want to instigate a change, you need to stop buying music from RIAA labels, in addition to not downloading. As soon as you infringe upon their rights, they have all the legal power. By not downloading, you keep yourself in the clear and have much more influence when you choose not to buy their product.
This is Slashdot, and you can't copyright coffee, so it is cool. After all, life isn't complete until you've ripped off other people's material. Rest assured, if there is ever a Coffee Industry Association of America, Slashdot will be all over it like flies on roadkill.
The two issues are quite distinct. Almost everyone I know considers shoplifting a bad thing and would never do it. At the same time however, these same people have no problems downloading the latest movie or hit song of P2P services.
I'm not going to get into the whole "is it stealing if you don't have a physical copy" bullshit argument, because it can't be one. The plain and simple fact is that in both cases, someone is not getting paid for their work.
It's really the case of a society dealing with the new moral implications of technology. If copyright infringement were as rare as shoplifting, I doubt the *IAAs would be raising a very big stink and we'd all be downloading are movies and tunes from well run online stores with little to no DRM. It is the consumers who brought this on themselves by not respecting other people's rights. Not the other way around.
By the way, I'm no apologist for the *IAAs, but it seems people like to only look at the issue from one point of view.
Well, say goodbye to any form of high definition content streaming to your home over IP then. Seriously, why do people even assert that more bandwidth is somehow unnecessary. There are all kinds of scenarios that exist today that can't be handled because bandwidth is such a limiting factor.
Bigger, faster, better is done in the name of progress. No one says you can't take a break from fast-paced technology by going for a hike in the woods. Hell, you can give it up entirely and live there for all I care. Just don't go around asserting that things are fine the way they are and nothing should change, it only makes you look ignorant.
The game collection is generally unappealing to me. I like to play games like Tony Hawk, SSX, etc. Gamecube gets some of these games (the most popular), but definately not all. It is purely personal, but the Gamecube isn't marketed towards my interests.
A sound strategy, and I would consider buying an xboxnext, but not an xbox. Why buy the console if I now that the xboxnext will be backwards compatible? I can wait, honestly, I can wait. There are few if any xbox games I have to have.
I guess that's your decision, but either way you are not buying an Xbox so MS has no reason to appeal to you. There are people (myself included) who this will sway. I would purchase an Xbox for $99 (assuming backwards compatibility) knowing full well that it will be outdated in a year or so. $99 over the course of a year is not a big deal to me. It will get me in on the Xbox and buying current games. Otherwise, I'm not going to buy an Xbox, I won't buy any current games, and I'll only consider buying the Xbox Next. Anyone who can't be swayed, isn't going to be. But there are people who can. And the sway is the difference between the gurantee of bringing gamers on to your platform versus the possibility.
If I buy an Xbox ($99), five games (~$200), and an Xbox Next (~300), I've already spent $600 before buying any next gen games. There's a good chance I spend $0 dollars on the Xbox platform if there is no swaying factor.
The Xbox is at the end of its lifecycle and if MS wants a chance in the next gen market, they need to use the resources they currently have wisely. Any adopter they can bring on to the current platform is one they will likely keep for the next gen. For people who like to only own one current console (again, myself), they have a chance of eating away at the competition. I've already started evaluating my decision for a next gen console, and I can be convinced to go with the Xbox Next if I see the value in it. If MS just takes the easy road, I'll stick with the PS3 by default. MS is behind, they need to actively win over customers.
Perhaps, but again, Sony has breathing room to react to Microsofts tactics. If they release early, Microsoft's cards are now on the table. Sony can react to that. This does not gurantee a win for Microsoft anymore than saying the console will be backwards compatable (although it would be nice).
I don't agree with this. MS had breathing room between the PS2 and the Xbox release, but it hasn't proved to be much benefit. Performance increases in a 9 month or so period for the console market are negligible. Success is based on game quality and slightly improved graphics is not a huge deal to your typical console gamer. Otherwise, the Xbox would be winning right now. I think MS and Sony are equally skilled in creating platforms such that minor hardware differences won't be a selling point.
The winner of the next gen war will be the one who executes an overall strategy better. Sony is the chip leader, so MS needs to utilize any leverage it can come up with. It can't be conservative if they want to be on top 3 years from now. I think what I outlined would be a good strategy, but we will see how it plays out.
In any case, I've enjoyed reading your opinions. I thought I'd comment further on your reply.
First off, with their next console they have to try and ensure that they are not in the red like they are with the xbox.
First off, I don't think there has been a console in recent history that has turned a profit on hardware. The hardware is sold at a loss to increase adoption rates, and thus game sales, which is where the money is made.
lower the xbox's price down to $99 will not necessarily make people go out and buy one.... IMHO, Microsoft will probably release around the same day and time as Sony to be safe. By putting their cards on the table early, it will give Sony plenty of time to respond. If they release around the same time, it will be more like a game of rock,paper, scissors (just hope they both choose scissors).
First off, I only own a PS2. I've thought about getting an Xbox, becaused I'd like Amped 2 and a few others, but I can't justify it. A $99 dollar console I'd rush out and buy without thinking about it. I'd pick up a couple games too without regrets.
Here is the kicker. MS in behind Sony by quite a ways in this market. They obviously want to be the dominant player, and they are going to need to turn tricks to do it. They have to release at least 6-9 months before Sony. If they come out within a few weeks of each other, I will not get the Xbox Next. Why? I already have a PS2 and it's a fairly sure bet that the PS3 will be able to play PS2 games, mabey not PS1 games but you should really be setting those aside by now.
Anyhow, here is my take on what MS should do to put up a decent fight. Drop the Xbox to $99 and announce that the Xbox Next will be backwards compatible on the same day. I'd buy a console and a few games that day and a few more over the course of time. Backwards compatibility is also critical to ensure a decent library of titles for the next gen console and game makers switch over.
Then, if MS can beat Sony by a 9 months to market, I'd pick up an Xbox Next and probably not get a PS3. The performance differences will be negligible and I will still have my PS2 around to play my current game collection.
In short, I think the $99 Xbox/backwards compatibility guarantee along with a release 9 months or so before Sony would really level the playing field and possibly swing the favor to MS. MS is behind, and they must do something spectacular to catch up. Just keeping pace with Sony will not work, because it guarantees MS will always be behind.
I would have preferred a simple overview of how to operate the astrolabe. Unfortunately Chaucer had to take the tack of having each piece tell a tale about how it fits into the whole. That wouldn't be so bad, but sometimes the tales are analogies that are somewhat hard to relate to the instrument at hand.
How is this interesting? Let's assume that Trolltech did decide to get rid of the GPL version. You still have access to the code from the previous version, so the open source community would just take that and improve/standardize on it. And, since the code is GPLd, all contributions to it from the community would be GPLd and the whole thing would be GPL forever.
In any case, it is probably a moot point because TT would never do that. If they did, a fork would be started immediately by the OSS community, and TT would be resigned to a commercial GUI toolkit vendor with little added value, since their big selling point now is being a "recognized" UNIX toolkit vendor.
A lawyer: 1. Numerous years of education to become certified. 2. Likely has years of experience trying cases. 3. Does work as a career, which quickly goes away with a piss poor record.
There must be some code in the comment submission code that checks makes sure all tags are closed and closes them if not (so posters can't screw up the rendering). Is there some reason that this same code can't be used in whatever script the editors use to post stories?
Just curious, seems this happens at least once every few months.
I can't tell if you are trolling, but I will bite.
I've never ran a Power Mac G4, but I've heard they were quite the wind machine. Anyway, I got a G5 a few months ago, and I can say that it is without a doubt the quietest system I have ever owned (and I've only owned PCs, custom and purchased).
It looks to me like Motorola's i.MX Reference Design PDA is running Linux and the Qtopia embedded windowing system from TrollTech. The device is about halfway down the page.
Moore's law is a cop out and should never be used to justify inefficient engineering.
As for your "broadcast, not unicast" idea. I'd like to see you efficiently use a cell phone network to broadcast data. Definately not the ideal when trying to achive efficiency.
Even if you were to attempt it, how do you define, "the general area." If you take the simplest solution in a cellular network, you'd have to go with the cell you are connected to. That amount of data could be quite overwhelming in a large city, and far too much to sort through for any mobile user.
The beauty of devices is that they can make your life simpler, ala TiVo. It's always a trade off between privacy and convienice. Sure, TiVo knows the shows I like, but I spend a lot less time watching crap I don't like. In this scenario, I could set a few preferences over time and be notified of restaurants I'd enjoy eating at or a great local record shop I never knew was around the corner.
Instead, have the network provide information about the general area, and let the device decide what to do about it.
Nice, in theory. Very impractical, in reality. The problem is you want to push the intelligence into the device, and a feeble device at that. To ice the cake, there are thousands (perhaps millions) of permutations of "information about the general area."
It is far easier to do the dirty work on the back end, where computing power is more prevalent. Also, the data is subject to change fairly often, a business moves, the movie listings change at the theater, the daily special is different at the restaurant. Pushing those changes down to all the phones is far harder than updating the single back end providing the data.
If you go to a map site, and ask for driving directions to grandmas house five states away, you don't want a list of all the intersections within a 5 mile radius of her house, you want just the roads and turns to take for five states.
The last thing I want in this scenario (if I want it at all, and it could be compelling in certain instances) is my cell phone chewing on data for ten minutes while I'm trying to make a call.
What if the infringement causes the original to be worthless? Might stolen be an apt term then?
Someone got a hold of the HL2 code, which presumably makes it easier to write cheats, thus eliminating most of the fun of online play, which is a big selling factor. Let's say Valve releases the game, only to have cheaters ruin it from day one. They are not going to sell many copies of the game, at least until they fix the issue. Which, when someone holds your entire code base, means doing almost a complete rewrite.
So, it is reasonable to think that much of the code is entirely useless, as they will have to rewrite it to keep value in the game. However, they already have spent countless hours and dollars developing what they had. Sure, they still have the code, but the time and money is gone, hence stolen.
I agree with you that in the digital era, things aren't "stolen," per se. However, there are other issues in this case where stolen might be the case, as in time and money. Copying implies that no real damage is done, however, Valve will be delayed in their release date and have to spend probably hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this. Damage was done. "Stolen" may be too harsh, but "copied" is surely too weak.
I'm at work, so I had a Windows box handy to check this out. I went to the Unicast site and loaded an example ad. Sure enough, it took up the whole screen.
That, while being the selling factor for advertisers, will also be the downfall of the medium from a user's perspective. Full screen ads work fine on TV, because there is no concept of a window or multitasking.
Users quite often have multiple windows open while surfing the web, either multiple browsers or multiple applications. I will quite often type in an address, hit enter, and then switch to a different window while the page loads. Or I will simply queue up a site knowing I'm going to need it in a minute as a reference when writing a document.
I wouldn't mind these ads so much if they were full-window ads. Who is the advertiser to say that they have the right to become full screen, and become the focused application when I may be typing into a word processor or code editor?
People typically watch TV and aren't concerned about getting things done. However, using a computer they usually have are trying to accomplish a task. Any form of advertising that gets in the way will not be tolerated.
Have you ever been to LinuxDevices? They offer prominent failure stories. I'd guess well over half the devices listed their are either no longer available, vaporware, or very obscure.
I've heard about this TRON embedded OS and have spent some time looking over the materials you linked to on the site. My interest is piqued, but I am confused.
Is there any implementation of this that I can download and play around with? Preferrably something that runs on x86, but some cheap dev board would do. I see the link to the ItIts project, or whatever it is called, but I can't read Japanese so it doesn't help me too much.
Slashdot Mirror
If I wasn't going to pay for it anyways, does that arguement still hold up? ... Granted, downloading something instead of buying isn't exactly ethical, but there's a difference between downloading something and stealing it.
You've bit the classic argument hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately you're wrong. Yes, the picture does get muddled when digital data is in the equation. However, most of the value of the CD lies in the music that is on it, not the CD itself. That same value lies in the download, but in most cases the person who created the value sees no return. This is wrong.
Not that it matters for the sake of the arguement, but shoplifting is quite common.
Come on, realise the comparison. I know shoplifting happens, I'm not denying that. However, how many people do you know who shoplift routinely? Probably 1 or 2, if any at all. How many people do you know who download music off P2P sites routinely? I'd bet a good percentage of all the people you know.
The number of shoplifters are dwarfed, to the point of humiliation, by the number of people you download off P2P networks.
Actually, customers started downloading music because they wanted their music digitally and there was no legal alternative.
Excellent point, and the RIAA made a bad business decision when they ignored the demand. However, if you want change, you need to talk with your money in not spending it. As soon as you infringe upon the RIAAs distribution rights, you give up any voice you could have had. To make change, you need to stay on this side of the law and refuse to buy new music until its available as you want it.
And that's not even getting into how the the RIAA treats the artists, or that many people who use P2P are downloading songs they already have, will buy, or things that are not copyrighted or are not for sale.
Again, all valid points. There are very good uses for P2P networks and the RIAA is not always justified in its actions. But, they do hold the rights they are attempting to maintain.
You have it backwards. We, the people, are the ones with rights. Not the MPAA. Not the RIAA.
You've fallen for the most blatant lie that gets brought up in these debates. You have no rights to the music, unless you have purchased it. It is the artist that holds all the rights, as it was their creation. The RIAA is an industry group set-up to gain power in numbers. Hence, artists will occasionally give up certain rights for other benefits, and grant the RIAA those rights. The RIAA has more rights to the music than a customer who has not purchased it. End of story.
Now, I agree that the RIAA has abused certain powers and does not operate in the most benevolent way. I also think they should go away and the artists should seek a different form of distribution.
However, it wjould still be the artists who will hold copyrights. By purchasing a CD, download, etc. you are buying individual rights to listen to it as you see fit, but limited to you and others in your household. Under different mechanisms, artists could be more liberal, but that is pure speculation.
If you want to instigate a change, you need to stop buying music from RIAA labels, in addition to not downloading. As soon as you infringe upon their rights, they have all the legal power. By not downloading, you keep yourself in the clear and have much more influence when you choose not to buy their product.
This is Slashdot, and you can't copyright coffee, so it is cool. After all, life isn't complete until you've ripped off other people's material. Rest assured, if there is ever a Coffee Industry Association of America, Slashdot will be all over it like flies on roadkill.
The two issues are quite distinct. Almost everyone I know considers shoplifting a bad thing and would never do it. At the same time however, these same people have no problems downloading the latest movie or hit song of P2P services.
I'm not going to get into the whole "is it stealing if you don't have a physical copy" bullshit argument, because it can't be one. The plain and simple fact is that in both cases, someone is not getting paid for their work.
It's really the case of a society dealing with the new moral implications of technology. If copyright infringement were as rare as shoplifting, I doubt the *IAAs would be raising a very big stink and we'd all be downloading are movies and tunes from well run online stores with little to no DRM. It is the consumers who brought this on themselves by not respecting other people's rights. Not the other way around.
By the way, I'm no apologist for the *IAAs, but it seems people like to only look at the issue from one point of view.
Well, say goodbye to any form of high definition content streaming to your home over IP then. Seriously, why do people even assert that more bandwidth is somehow unnecessary. There are all kinds of scenarios that exist today that can't be handled because bandwidth is such a limiting factor.
Bigger, faster, better is done in the name of progress. No one says you can't take a break from fast-paced technology by going for a hike in the woods. Hell, you can give it up entirely and live there for all I care. Just don't go around asserting that things are fine the way they are and nothing should change, it only makes you look ignorant.
So you don't own a gamecube because?
The game collection is generally unappealing to me. I like to play games like Tony Hawk, SSX, etc. Gamecube gets some of these games (the most popular), but definately not all. It is purely personal, but the Gamecube isn't marketed towards my interests.
A sound strategy, and I would consider buying an xboxnext, but not an xbox. Why buy the console if I now that the xboxnext will be backwards compatible? I can wait, honestly, I can wait. There are few if any xbox games I have to have.
I guess that's your decision, but either way you are not buying an Xbox so MS has no reason to appeal to you. There are people (myself included) who this will sway. I would purchase an Xbox for $99 (assuming backwards compatibility) knowing full well that it will be outdated in a year or so. $99 over the course of a year is not a big deal to me. It will get me in on the Xbox and buying current games. Otherwise, I'm not going to buy an Xbox, I won't buy any current games, and I'll only consider buying the Xbox Next. Anyone who can't be swayed, isn't going to be. But there are people who can. And the sway is the difference between the gurantee of bringing gamers on to your platform versus the possibility.
If I buy an Xbox ($99), five games (~$200), and an Xbox Next (~300), I've already spent $600 before buying any next gen games. There's a good chance I spend $0 dollars on the Xbox platform if there is no swaying factor.
The Xbox is at the end of its lifecycle and if MS wants a chance in the next gen market, they need to use the resources they currently have wisely. Any adopter they can bring on to the current platform is one they will likely keep for the next gen. For people who like to only own one current console (again, myself), they have a chance of eating away at the competition. I've already started evaluating my decision for a next gen console, and I can be convinced to go with the Xbox Next if I see the value in it. If MS just takes the easy road, I'll stick with the PS3 by default. MS is behind, they need to actively win over customers.
Perhaps, but again, Sony has breathing room to react to Microsofts tactics. If they release early, Microsoft's cards are now on the table. Sony can react to that. This does not gurantee a win for Microsoft anymore than saying the console will be backwards compatable (although it would be nice).
I don't agree with this. MS had breathing room between the PS2 and the Xbox release, but it hasn't proved to be much benefit. Performance increases in a 9 month or so period for the console market are negligible. Success is based on game quality and slightly improved graphics is not a huge deal to your typical console gamer. Otherwise, the Xbox would be winning right now. I think MS and Sony are equally skilled in creating platforms such that minor hardware differences won't be a selling point.
The winner of the next gen war will be the one who executes an overall strategy better. Sony is the chip leader, so MS needs to utilize any leverage it can come up with. It can't be conservative if they want to be on top 3 years from now. I think what I outlined would be a good strategy, but we will see how it plays out.
In any case, I've enjoyed reading your opinions. I thought I'd comment further on your reply.
First off, with their next console they have to try and ensure that they are not in the red like they are with the xbox.
...
First off, I don't think there has been a console in recent history that has turned a profit on hardware. The hardware is sold at a loss to increase adoption rates, and thus game sales, which is where the money is made.
lower the xbox's price down to $99 will not necessarily make people go out and buy one.
IMHO, Microsoft will probably release around the same day and time as Sony to be safe. By putting their cards on the table early, it will give Sony plenty of time to respond. If they release around the same time, it will be more like a game of rock,paper, scissors (just hope they both choose scissors).
First off, I only own a PS2. I've thought about getting an Xbox, becaused I'd like Amped 2 and a few others, but I can't justify it. A $99 dollar console I'd rush out and buy without thinking about it. I'd pick up a couple games too without regrets.
Here is the kicker. MS in behind Sony by quite a ways in this market. They obviously want to be the dominant player, and they are going to need to turn tricks to do it. They have to release at least 6-9 months before Sony. If they come out within a few weeks of each other, I will not get the Xbox Next. Why? I already have a PS2 and it's a fairly sure bet that the PS3 will be able to play PS2 games, mabey not PS1 games but you should really be setting those aside by now.
Anyhow, here is my take on what MS should do to put up a decent fight. Drop the Xbox to $99 and announce that the Xbox Next will be backwards compatible on the same day. I'd buy a console and a few games that day and a few more over the course of time. Backwards compatibility is also critical to ensure a decent library of titles for the next gen console and game makers switch over.
Then, if MS can beat Sony by a 9 months to market, I'd pick up an Xbox Next and probably not get a PS3. The performance differences will be negligible and I will still have my PS2 around to play my current game collection.
In short, I think the $99 Xbox/backwards compatibility guarantee along with a release 9 months or so before Sony would really level the playing field and possibly swing the favor to MS. MS is behind, and they must do something spectacular to catch up. Just keeping pace with Sony will not work, because it guarantees MS will always be behind.
Thank you for a blatant repeat of the information that is in the article.
Thanks even more to the mods who modded this up.
This joke is so not funny anymore.
Thank you.
I would have preferred a simple overview of how to operate the astrolabe. Unfortunately Chaucer had to take the tack of having each piece tell a tale about how it fits into the whole. That wouldn't be so bad, but sometimes the tales are analogies that are somewhat hard to relate to the instrument at hand.
How is this interesting? Let's assume that Trolltech did decide to get rid of the GPL version. You still have access to the code from the previous version, so the open source community would just take that and improve/standardize on it. And, since the code is GPLd, all contributions to it from the community would be GPLd and the whole thing would be GPL forever.
In any case, it is probably a moot point because TT would never do that. If they did, a fork would be started immediately by the OSS community, and TT would be resigned to a commercial GUI toolkit vendor with little added value, since their big selling point now is being a "recognized" UNIX toolkit vendor.
"XML-based musical score format developed by Recordare LLC,"
Steps to guessing:
1. Focus on the XML-based musical score format half of the sentence, rather that the developed by Recordare LLC portion.
2. Realize the name of the format is MusicXML
3. Guess
Now, that is not to hard, is it?
The lottery:
1. Pure random chance.
A lawyer:
1. Numerous years of education to become certified.
2. Likely has years of experience trying cases.
3. Does work as a career, which quickly goes away with a piss poor record.
Comparing the two is not exactly a good analogy.
There must be some code in the comment submission code that checks makes sure all tags are closed and closes them if not (so posters can't screw up the rendering). Is there some reason that this same code can't be used in whatever script the editors use to post stories?
Just curious, seems this happens at least once every few months.
I can't tell if you are trolling, but I will bite.
I've never ran a Power Mac G4, but I've heard they were quite the wind machine. Anyway, I got a G5 a few months ago, and I can say that it is without a doubt the quietest system I have ever owned (and I've only owned PCs, custom and purchased).
It looks to me like Motorola's i.MX Reference Design PDA is running Linux and the Qtopia embedded windowing system from TrollTech. The device is about halfway down the page.
Or, the (crappy) picture can be found here.
what about them?
Moore's law is a cop out and should never be used to justify inefficient engineering.
As for your "broadcast, not unicast" idea. I'd like to see you efficiently use a cell phone network to broadcast data. Definately not the ideal when trying to achive efficiency.
Even if you were to attempt it, how do you define, "the general area." If you take the simplest solution in a cellular network, you'd have to go with the cell you are connected to. That amount of data could be quite overwhelming in a large city, and far too much to sort through for any mobile user.
The beauty of devices is that they can make your life simpler, ala TiVo. It's always a trade off between privacy and convienice. Sure, TiVo knows the shows I like, but I spend a lot less time watching crap I don't like. In this scenario, I could set a few preferences over time and be notified of restaurants I'd enjoy eating at or a great local record shop I never knew was around the corner.
Instead, have the network provide information about the general area, and let the device decide what to do about it.
Nice, in theory. Very impractical, in reality. The problem is you want to push the intelligence into the device, and a feeble device at that. To ice the cake, there are thousands (perhaps millions) of permutations of "information about the general area."
It is far easier to do the dirty work on the back end, where computing power is more prevalent. Also, the data is subject to change fairly often, a business moves, the movie listings change at the theater, the daily special is different at the restaurant. Pushing those changes down to all the phones is far harder than updating the single back end providing the data.
If you go to a map site, and ask for driving directions to grandmas house five states away, you don't want a list of all the intersections within a 5 mile radius of her house, you want just the roads and turns to take for five states.
The last thing I want in this scenario (if I want it at all, and it could be compelling in certain instances) is my cell phone chewing on data for ten minutes while I'm trying to make a call.
What if the infringement causes the original to be worthless? Might stolen be an apt term then?
Someone got a hold of the HL2 code, which presumably makes it easier to write cheats, thus eliminating most of the fun of online play, which is a big selling factor. Let's say Valve releases the game, only to have cheaters ruin it from day one. They are not going to sell many copies of the game, at least until they fix the issue. Which, when someone holds your entire code base, means doing almost a complete rewrite.
So, it is reasonable to think that much of the code is entirely useless, as they will have to rewrite it to keep value in the game. However, they already have spent countless hours and dollars developing what they had. Sure, they still have the code, but the time and money is gone, hence stolen.
I agree with you that in the digital era, things aren't "stolen," per se. However, there are other issues in this case where stolen might be the case, as in time and money. Copying implies that no real damage is done, however, Valve will be delayed in their release date and have to spend probably hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this. Damage was done. "Stolen" may be too harsh, but "copied" is surely too weak.
I'm at work, so I had a Windows box handy to check this out. I went to the Unicast site and loaded an example ad. Sure enough, it took up the whole screen.
That, while being the selling factor for advertisers, will also be the downfall of the medium from a user's perspective. Full screen ads work fine on TV, because there is no concept of a window or multitasking.
Users quite often have multiple windows open while surfing the web, either multiple browsers or multiple applications. I will quite often type in an address, hit enter, and then switch to a different window while the page loads. Or I will simply queue up a site knowing I'm going to need it in a minute as a reference when writing a document.
I wouldn't mind these ads so much if they were full-window ads. Who is the advertiser to say that they have the right to become full screen, and become the focused application when I may be typing into a word processor or code editor?
People typically watch TV and aren't concerned about getting things done. However, using a computer they usually have are trying to accomplish a task. Any form of advertising that gets in the way will not be tolerated.
Were you going to give credit to this guy?
No one in these virtual worlds should be allowed to paint their dwellings the color of the YRO pages.
Why don't they ever offer "failure" stories?
Have you ever been to LinuxDevices? They offer prominent failure stories. I'd guess well over half the devices listed their are either no longer available, vaporware, or very obscure.
I've heard about this TRON embedded OS and have spent some time looking over the materials you linked to on the site. My interest is piqued, but I am confused.
Is there any implementation of this that I can download and play around with? Preferrably something that runs on x86, but some cheap dev board would do. I see the link to the ItIts project, or whatever it is called, but I can't read Japanese so it doesn't help me too much.