Ok, his principle is that if books are published online in the form of online libraries, that no one will read real books. Here's a question, though, where is the evidence for this? Did I buy my Arkham House edition of The Dunwich Horror and Others only because I wanted the content contained within? No, I could easily have picked up a few cheap paperbacks with gaudy covers that contained the same stories. No, I bought it because I wanted to own the book.
I still haven't seen a format to beat books for useability of portable print media, I don't think there has been a significant improvement (other than mass production) since Julius Caesar decided to sew some scrolls together and make a "codex."
In fact, a significant number of the books I buy, from O'Reilly and others, contain information that could be pieced together from online sources, if I had the time and the patience.
Will eBooks ever reach a point where they will equal the usability of real books? Maybe, but this Salon article suggests they have a ways to go.
Essentially it is an elitist, anti-democratic argument. People who can't afford to buy real books (and some of the best ones are hard to get, anyone read Hugo's The Man Who Laughed in English translation lately?) would have a big advantage if they could read them online. They'd have to give up the aesthetic appeal and useability of a real book, but they'd have access to the content. I think, underneath it all, the argument made by the Librarian of Congress is a class argument. I.e. if you can't afford, or be able to get ahold of a "real book" you don't deserve to read it. (I bet if I checked my local library, I wouldn't necessarily find some of the great works out there... but I'd find a stack of Halequin Romances big enough to build furniture out of... Certainly not the selection of important books available at the Library of Congress!)
Well, to top it off I'm reminded of Brainiac's quote to Superman when he was asked why he was destroying worlds after he had downloaded all of their knowledge, "The fewer beings that have the knowledge, the more valuable it becomes."
They point out that you can by a small LCD to go with it too, but the LCDs seem kind of expensive, even the "budget" LCDs, of course I'm not sure of the currency conversion rate. My question is, of course, why does everything have to be nice? I have an old Monoral PC with a really cheap LCD screen (the whole computer clocked in at under $1000) and it was good enough to get work done. Now though, if you want to by an LCD monitor it has to be nice (and expensive). I mean, I'd like to see a cheap, servicable LCD to go with a cheap, servicable computer. Like the $385 one that ibuypower has advertised here. Or I could use the LCD to go with the Pocket EPC System or Book PC (I mean, I could leave the cheap LCD at work and hook the thing up to my good monitor when I got home, etc.)
Oh well, I guess the best Idea is to buy a Pocket EPC, take the guts out of it, crack open the Monorail, take the guts out of that and combine them in to a Frankestein computer....
o/~ It's a B movie, it's a B movie show o/~
Well, if I ever get money to start a project, that is...;_;
First of all, did anyone notice that http://www.replay.com/ doen't show up in Netscape (on Linux at least, I haven't yet checked it under Windows) only IE. You can go to http://www.replay.com/overview/techspecs.htm under Lynx though.
The video is stored in MPEG II format and it stores 20 hours, so how big a harddrive is that? (I'm thinking a 20.4 Gig hard drive would be more than adequate. But I've never tried to record a bunch of MPEG-II's before.) Now I'm guessing that the video capture device they are using is of higher quality than say, PC TV studio (which we use here at work). Any thoughts on the best video capture device to use? (Preferably one that works under Linux.)
I'm wondering what the serial port is for?
I'd rather try to build one of these myself than buy theirs, after all it is just a specialized PC.
Oh, and of course, my version will definitely have a CD reader/writer...
Well, just some random meanderings, I don't have any money right now or time to start a project -_-.
Because GameBoy color isn't very good, and because when you look at GameBoy color, the system may not be expensive but the cartridges are, comparitively.
Actually, the GameBoy is an interesting "What if?" What if Nintendo had never upgraded from the Snes? Would they have held their own against Sony better or worse? While the obvious answer would seem to be worse, the GameBoy shows that out of date technology can thrive as long as programmers will push it. There are some good games for it, so my brother tells me, but I've never been able to enjoy playing on that tiny, relatively colorless screen.
Of course, I'm a bitter Lynx owner. I keep thinking I'll bring that to work one of these days and when people ask me what it is I'll say, "Oh, it's my new PDA! It's called a Lynx," and see how many people I can fool.
Of course, Lynxes kill batteries PDQ, too. I would never try to use one without a "Lynx Battery Pack" (massive, almost the same size as the Lynx, uses D batteries) or a power adaptor. Of course, I have the old Lynx, I think on the newer version of the Lynx you can turn off the back light.
I don't know why some clever company never bought the rights to Lynx technology and tried to make it smaller and more energy efficient (as well as continuing to develop games for it). It blows away both the GameBoy Color and NeoGeo Pocket (which I own, and don't play that much... seems to be almost the same quality as Color GameBoy) in terms of processing power, and considering its age it should have been possible (by Moore's law) to improve it greatly as far as size and efficiency.
Oh well, I look forward to the day when they finally come out with a handheld system that is more advanced than the Lynx or the TurboExpress.
Yeah, I know, I'll get moderated down by some youngster who hates to hear us old guys grumbling about things, "back in the day." But here's the Atari Lynx FAQ for those browsing at -1 ^_-
I think she was refering to a quote that has been atributed to him, though unreferenced, "That programmers ought to work as waiters so they can give code away for free." I'm not sure whether this is a Stallman quote or not, but there is a serious Atlas Shrugged effect problem with it if it were to be implemented. I've never waited tables but I've had some pretty crummy, low paying jobs, like K-Mart cashier and Winn Dixie stock person. When I was working at these jobs and got home at the end of the day, did I feel like writing code? Maybe, but if I did it would be for some game or other impractical amusement, not how to get Firewire working under Linux. It was more likely I'd rather just play Final Fantasy III on my brothers Super Nintendo.
Programming, in my opinion, should be paying work. The only question is how and what kind of programming. It is better for programmers as a class if they are compensated for the work they do. It is better for a few rich companies and wiley, business oriented hackers if they make money by writing (or buying, a.k.a. Bill Gates and DOS) a few programs and make money from licensing them.
There is a middle ground, but with out salaried programmers a significant amount of useful programs won't get written.
Again nothing I've read by or about RMS contains the waiter's quote, so it may, for all I know, be apocryphal.
The battle over CSS has been about whether people have the right to use software (I consider DVDs software because they are programs read by a computer chip) when it is controlled by the content control system CSS, even after they've bought it. I hope they'll lose in the courts, but it is unclear at this point whether they will, however, my question is on another, related topic.
Suppose very strong, nearly unbreakable encryption were used on traditional Software DVD (i.e. stuff like M$ software or other companies software, just in a DVD format) and a DVD CCA for software were set up saying, "You aren't allowed to access the content of any DVDs unless you use our licensed DVD decryption software. Oh, and our DVD decryption software contains a legally enforceable (under UCITA) software license which states that you cannot reverse engineer any content you have decrypted using our decryption software." How would Free Software handle it? Does there now need to be a Free Hardware philosophy which states that "Hardware which exists tied to a proprietary software system must be replaced by Free Hardware standards" or something similar?
I ask only because I believe the future battles against proprietary software are going to be against tied hardware/software combinations and that the anti-Free Software forces are going to use the DMCA, UCITA, and strong encryption in their arsenal.
Of course, if you are Nintendo and Universal Studios sues you, they'll end up finding they never had the right to the name "King Kong" in the first place ^_^
Don't mess with Nintendo (I loved reading about this case! Go Nintendo!), and remember the extremely rich will always have fair use in this country... it's only the little people who have to worry. Uh-oh, I'm one of the little people;_;
Think about it. When Torgo (from the fantastic Academy Award winning film Manos: The Hands of Fate) shows up as a pizza delivery guy at Deep 13, isn't that the same thing as when a fan fiction writer does a Star Trek/B5 crossover?
Of course, there is a difference, since MST3K was a TV show, they had to be very careful about the rights. In some cases, old MST3Ks will never be seen again (wink, wink) because the use of the film by the MST3K creators was incorrect or expired.
Of course, you can't expect people who write free fan fiction to do this... eventually most of the content on the Internet created by fans will be destroyed. Fortunately, political screeds by demented political extremists (like my own Website ^_-) will be there to take up the slack! Oh, and don't forget the billboards, lots and lots of Internet billboards will be up too... a great future, eh?
Of course, some smart companies with small advertising budgets may take advantage of this and give fans the right to make limited, non-commercial use of their products. (Just don't expect any of those companies to be in MPAA...)
I noticed your page seems somewhat pessimistic, but then I'm something of a pessimist too.
I guess it must be something to do with living under the accursed reign of Reverend Bob Buckhorn, eh?
Oh, so as not to be 100% off-topic, great post BTW. It has that great "Hackers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains." vibe going.
I don't use Linux because of stock prices, and I doubt that anyone sane is running around saying "Oh, Linux-oriented stocks are down. I guess I'd better run out and get Win2K for my server."
I actually made this point in a previous story about an "official" Linux DVD player when someone was saying something about a DVD player being neccessary for Linux to be commercially viable. (In the sense of attracting investors.) The point is, I think people have to understand that if Linux were non-Copyleft software bad venture capital could ruin it. There are lot's of examples of this in history, see Game Over by David Scheff (the Atari section, yet another chapter in Time/Warners history of villainy), The Gary Gygax FAQ, Otaku No Video, or what happened to Netscape after AOL took over. I mean, if Linux were an ordinary product, Micros~1 could just buy it and kill it.
As long as the big corporations can't figure out a way to legally destroy Copyleft, useful Free Software will have a built in "immune system."
However, the stock tumble on Linux stocks will affect my boss's perception of Linux. She already doesn't like Linux (she was talked into using it by higher ups in the company) and would rather be using Windows NT. As a compromise, she'd like to move to a non-free UNIX, because she just doesn't like the concept of Copyleft software. So, when she's gathering evidence against Linux, to get funding approved to buy Solaris, she'll point to the fact, "See, all the Linux stocks tumbled. You don't want to be using this product in the company, do you?" (She's been fighting Linux since the start, she just doesn't like it.)
I suspect some management types, who don't get technology but understand the market, might fall for these arguments. For this reason, I'm hoping the Linux stocks will rally.
If I had any investing money right now (all my money is tied to a down payment on a house:( I'd probably pick up some Caldera stock now. Caldera has a lot going for it (though it isn't my favorite distribution) for example I'm pretty sure they were the first with a Windows like installation process as well as the fact they intigrate their Dr. Dos product and a lot of other commercial products well. Their stock was way cheap the last time I checked, but by the time I get to invest in it I'm sure that won't be the case...
Yes, but you'd think the Japanese government would be smarter then that. I'd expect that from Americans, possibly Brits, but Japanese? Idunno, maybe I'm just stereotyping. Damn subconscious racism.
From a purely cultural perspective, though, you'd also expect them to be the government with the motto "Let's do whatever Sony tells us to do." I mean, where do you think all that Japanese protectionism came from, sound governing policy? They probably did it this way to avoid WTO sanctions.
This is similar to the Apple commercial with the tanks.
The fact is Sony is willing to use whatever FUD tactics it can to control it's profit base.
Just about any advanced circutry can be converted to weapons use... if you are from a country that doesn't have the advanced circutry. This is why, in the 80's the Russians were buying handheld Pac-Man games to study the technology. It didn't mean that the Pac Man machines were "dangerous weapons" it just meant that the Russians were really badly behind, technology-wise. The PS2 might be more powerful than, say, the stuff they have in Afganistan, but then so is the average laptop. It is certainly not more powerful than what we have in the US... scary to see marketing hype accepted as fact by the government of Japan.
So, Sony goes to the Japanese government and tells them, "We don't want any Sony Playstation 2s to be exported out of the country before they are released in other countries. Say it is because they might be used for dangerous weapons." The government of Japan says, "Yes sir, may we clean your shoes while we're at it?"
Sony gets free publicity, and maximum level security to prevent their valuable toys from getting out of the country.
Oh, and not to pick on Japan, because Sony is part of the Entertainment Trust, which, in this country, has managed to successfully equate content control with "anti-piracy" and has judges going along with it. Compared to Sony, Micros~1 are just amateurs.
It amazes me that people are still probably going to buy from a company that is this despicable and has had such a corrupting influence on the government of its own country and our country. Sigh... the power of advertising, I guess.
I keep seeing the same flawed argument, over and over again in this thread that "Gamers use Windows therefore games must work on Windows to be profitable."
Gamers could care less about the Operating System, if a game company produces great games for Linux that everyone wants, gamers will get Linux and stick it on a parttion of their Windows machine. It's not hard, since Windows and Linux are not exclusive, (they can easily exist on the same machine,) there's no reason not to do it.
The real truth is that Windows existence depends on three things in the consumer market, that it has the best Web browser (and I mean significantly better than the Linux Web browser), the best hardware support and that the best games are still written for it.
In the PC gamer market, however, the only thing Windows has going for it is that the majority of good games are still written for it. If a PC gamer sees he can get all the same games he can on Windows, and a few really good, exclusive Linux games on Linux, he/she will switch to Linux (though probably keep Windows on a partition if he still has games he wants for that.) Remember a PC gamer builds his machine specifically for gaming. This means picking out modems and graphics cards with good support for his OS of choice. The only reason Windows is the OS of choice for gaming systems is that it has more games. (In fact it isn't even the Windows OS, it is the DirectX API that means games will run on the system.)
Gamers are not crawling PC sheep (those are a seperate group of users), they go where ever the best games are. Micros~1 had better pray and fight tooth-and-nail to keep Linux from becoming a viable gaming platform, because once it is Windows days are numbered in the consumer market.
See, now here is an actual troll, probably works for Micros~1 games division. Let's take him apart:
First of all, the installed base is *maybe* 100,000-500,000. Most distributions sold are tried, then dumped.
Yeah, and I'm running a version of Mandrake that came free with a magazine, so I don't count among the distributions sold. You see, when you say "sold, then dumped" you're dealing with phantom numbers. I mean I can get Linux for free if I want, and I don't mean a hard to install downloaded distribution either. The Linux User Group at my school gives away Linux distributions at parties. How big an installed base never bought an official distribution?
Second of all, the number of Linux users that use it as a desktop system rather than a server (i.e., potentially for games) *might* be 10-50,000 -- if you're lucky. It takes a hard, hard, hard-core user to use Linux every day (without any Windows system) when they know the applications suck compared to the ones on Windows or the Mac.
Hmm, the applications suck compared to what exactly? The Windows operating system sucks compared to Linux, but people still use it. The applications for Linux vary, and besides, the fact that people keep a Windows or MacOS partition around (yes, you can run Linux on a Mac!) doesn't mean they aren't Linux users!
Proof: How did the shrink-wrap linux Game experiments do? Don't hear too much about the stellar sales, do you?
Yeah, Linux is still a niche market, but Linux games are making money. Loki isn't going out of business any time soon.
There is only one thing Linux needs to start to get out of the niche gaming market and into the main stream, and that is a killer game app that every gamer wants but that doesn't have a Windows port. Heck, the game could be packaged with a Linux distribution and partitioning tools, I bet any gamer would love to try it. Gamers are not cowardly little computer users, they have no problem messing with their systems to get that little bit of extra performance out of them. I doubt a userfriendly Linux distribution would intimidate them. People who use their computer for fun are more likely to mess around with it than people who just use it to do work and surf the Web. Of course, you may be an arrogant Micros~1 employee who believes that no one knows about computers and nobody wants to. If that true, why are their even PC gamers at all why doesn't everone just get a Playstation, the epitome of the non-technical users game machine? Even with Playstations, how many people have modified them to play games from other regions (or had one of their tech savvy friends do it? The same guy they'll have set up their Linux partition?). Or maybe you think that the people who pay $60+ for a PC game are just "casual gamers?"
Here's hoping you end up in one of the unprofitable Baby Bills when the government breaks up your company.
Probably a "revenge moderator." You know, someone out to get someone they disagreed with in an earlier post. Irritating, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
I'm not even going to get into the idea of a trinity and all those images of Jesus that Christians have (both of which, in the eyes of observant Jews, violate the Ten Commandments).
Robert A. Heinlein (again in Grumbles from the Grave) agreed with the rabbis on this, three persons is polytheism. Of course in my church (which used to burn and torture people who weren't doctrinarily pure) they just say, "Oh, that's just a sacred mystery that the human mind can't understand."
Hmm.... now that I think of it, if my Church (the Roman Catholic Church) used to burn and torture people for the crime of heresy, doesn't that make it a cult? Maybe a "legitimate religion" is just a cult that has settled down, sold it's Harley Davidson and biker clothes and bought a station wagon?
Scientology is hardly a mainstream religion so it is probably mostly True Believers. I find that the fervent True Believers who do not allow for the existence of doubt are usually the scariest people in any religion, but religions always start out being composed mostly of those people.
I guess I just have a problem with the idea of unquestioning obedience to any human being, but I figure if people will accept that kind of slavish devotion their ministers or priests why do people work so hard to differentiate cults from religions? I know Scientology is big in Clearwater, but here in Tampa, the scariest people are the ones who come to my apartment at all hours to make sure I've accepted (their version) of Jesus into my heart. It seems like the Church without Walls sends people to my apartment complex at least once a week to push their little pamphlets at everyone, but I doubt anyone would consider them a cult.
So, I have to reiterate Bart Simpson, "Church=cult cult=church, so we're bored someplace else for an hour every Sunday."
Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology.
on
Battlefield Earth
·
· Score: 1
Interestingly enough, Heinlein groupies in the 70's wanted to form a cult around Stranger in a Strange Land (for obvious reasons) but according to Grumbles from the Grave (Heinlein's collected, post-mortem correspondence) he just would go along with it.
Would in the above quote should be wouldn't
Sorry, I guess I'm just worn out and ready to go home...
Re:I don't think this is a film about scientology.
on
Battlefield Earth
·
· Score: 1
I really like Friday, but if you don't have time to read a novel, find some of his short stories. I think they contain some of his best work. I really, really liked "By His Bootstraps."
Interestingly enough, Heinlein groupies in the 70's wanted to form a cult around Stranger in a Strange Land (for obvious reasons) but according to Grumbles from the Grave (Heinlein's collected, post-mortem correspondence) he just would go along with it.
Oh! Does everyone remember the pitched battles between the Scientologists and the Fundamentalists in Friday?
I think I would rather form an evil, secret society than an evil cult. I mean I look at it this way, "How many scientologists have been President of the United States?" "None, as far as I know." "Now, how many Bonesmen have been president?" "Well, at the very least George Bush Senior."
So, when choosing an illuminated group to join, always pick the Bavarian Illuminati over the Servants of Cthuhlu.
Two words and a number: Gran Turismo 2000. The game looks amazing. I bought an N64 to play Zelda, I bought a Dreamcast to play Hydro Thunder, and I'm buying a PS2 to play GT2000.
Of course, games sell systems, that's always been true.
However, that doesn't mean that this systems actual design isn't inferior to it's competitors (except Micros~1, unless they have something really amazing that I can't imagine up there sleeve... which I doubt).
This system doesn't sound like a console anymore, it sounds like a new kind of personal computer. In which case, it shouldn't be considered to be competing in the console market.
Sony is out to create a PC which is tied to them, which is why they are adding features which are both useless and detrimental for a console based system.
I say let them, they will soon find (after the initial console zealots decide they have to buy it just because it's a Sony) that simplicity is essential for the console market.
Sega learned this the hard way, after producing two failed peripherals for their system. (hey, I loved my SegaCD but it was a failure from a commercial perspective.) People want consoles to be simple and cheap. If a gamer doesn't mind complexity, he'll buy a PC for game playing.
This complexity is (hopefully, as I want to see Sony fail) going to kill the PS2 in the long run. We've already seen it with a software recall on the PS2. A software recall? On a console? I never heard of that happening before.
Right now Sony zealots are going to be spreading FUD about competing consoles like Dreamcast and Dolphin, so people won't buy them and they won't get any exclusive games (which is what sells console hardware, even moreso than simplicity, unfortunately).
Another way to look at this is that Sony is abandoning the console market in favor of the cheap PC market. In which case, since people will still want consoles, game companies which actually make consoles should still suceed. (That is, unless Sony uses it's monopoly power to indimidate companies out of developing for them or stores out of selling them.)
Slashdot Mirror
I still haven't seen a format to beat books for useability of portable print media, I don't think there has been a significant improvement (other than mass production) since Julius Caesar decided to sew some scrolls together and make a "codex."
In fact, a significant number of the books I buy, from O'Reilly and others, contain information that could be pieced together from online sources, if I had the time and the patience.
Will eBooks ever reach a point where they will equal the usability of real books? Maybe, but this Salon article suggests they have a ways to go.
Essentially it is an elitist, anti-democratic argument. People who can't afford to buy real books (and some of the best ones are hard to get, anyone read Hugo's The Man Who Laughed in English translation lately?) would have a big advantage if they could read them online. They'd have to give up the aesthetic appeal and useability of a real book, but they'd have access to the content. I think, underneath it all, the argument made by the Librarian of Congress is a class argument. I.e. if you can't afford, or be able to get ahold of a "real book" you don't deserve to read it. (I bet if I checked my local library, I wouldn't necessarily find some of the great works out there... but I'd find a stack of Halequin Romances big enough to build furniture out of... Certainly not the selection of important books available at the Library of Congress!)
Well, to top it off I'm reminded of Brainiac's quote to Superman when he was asked why he was destroying worlds after he had downloaded all of their knowledge, "The fewer beings that have the knowledge, the more valuable it becomes."
Oh well, I guess the best Idea is to buy a Pocket EPC, take the guts out of it, crack open the Monorail, take the guts out of that and combine them in to a Frankestein computer....
o/~ It's a B movie, it's a B movie show o/~
Well, if I ever get money to start a project, that is... ;_;
The video is stored in MPEG II format and it stores 20 hours, so how big a harddrive is that? (I'm thinking a 20.4 Gig hard drive would be more than adequate. But I've never tried to record a bunch of MPEG-II's before.) Now I'm guessing that the video capture device they are using is of higher quality than say, PC TV studio (which we use here at work). Any thoughts on the best video capture device to use? (Preferably one that works under Linux.)
I'm wondering what the serial port is for?
I'd rather try to build one of these myself than buy theirs, after all it is just a specialized PC.
Oh, and of course, my version will definitely have a CD reader/writer...
Well, just some random meanderings, I don't have any money right now or time to start a project -_-.
I love Tomb Raider, but that level is like falling into Hell.
At least it isn't "a maze of twisty little passages, all a like" or maybe it is, just updated for a 3-D engine.
Actually, the GameBoy is an interesting "What if?" What if Nintendo had never upgraded from the Snes? Would they have held their own against Sony better or worse? While the obvious answer would seem to be worse, the GameBoy shows that out of date technology can thrive as long as programmers will push it. There are some good games for it, so my brother tells me, but I've never been able to enjoy playing on that tiny, relatively colorless screen.
Of course, I'm a bitter Lynx owner. I keep thinking I'll bring that to work one of these days and when people ask me what it is I'll say, "Oh, it's my new PDA! It's called a Lynx," and see how many people I can fool.
Of course, Lynxes kill batteries PDQ, too. I would never try to use one without a "Lynx Battery Pack" (massive, almost the same size as the Lynx, uses D batteries) or a power adaptor. Of course, I have the old Lynx, I think on the newer version of the Lynx you can turn off the back light.
I don't know why some clever company never bought the rights to Lynx technology and tried to make it smaller and more energy efficient (as well as continuing to develop games for it). It blows away both the GameBoy Color and NeoGeo Pocket (which I own, and don't play that much... seems to be almost the same quality as Color GameBoy) in terms of processing power, and considering its age it should have been possible (by Moore's law) to improve it greatly as far as size and efficiency.
Oh well, I look forward to the day when they finally come out with a handheld system that is more advanced than the Lynx or the TurboExpress.
Yeah, I know, I'll get moderated down by some youngster who hates to hear us old guys grumbling about things, "back in the day." But here's the Atari Lynx FAQ for those browsing at -1 ^_-
Programming, in my opinion, should be paying work. The only question is how and what kind of programming. It is better for programmers as a class if they are compensated for the work they do. It is better for a few rich companies and wiley, business oriented hackers if they make money by writing (or buying, a.k.a. Bill Gates and DOS) a few programs and make money from licensing them.
There is a middle ground, but with out salaried programmers a significant amount of useful programs won't get written.
Again nothing I've read by or about RMS contains the waiter's quote, so it may, for all I know, be apocryphal.
I admire samantha's literary style.
Suppose very strong, nearly unbreakable encryption were used on traditional Software DVD (i.e. stuff like M$ software or other companies software, just in a DVD format) and a DVD CCA for software were set up saying, "You aren't allowed to access the content of any DVDs unless you use our licensed DVD decryption software. Oh, and our DVD decryption software contains a legally enforceable (under UCITA) software license which states that you cannot reverse engineer any content you have decrypted using our decryption software." How would Free Software handle it? Does there now need to be a Free Hardware philosophy which states that "Hardware which exists tied to a proprietary software system must be replaced by Free Hardware standards" or something similar?
I ask only because I believe the future battles against proprietary software are going to be against tied hardware/software combinations and that the anti-Free Software forces are going to use the DMCA, UCITA, and strong encryption in their arsenal.
Don't mess with Nintendo (I loved reading about this case! Go Nintendo!), and remember the extremely rich will always have fair use in this country... it's only the little people who have to worry. Uh-oh, I'm one of the little people ;_;
Of course, there is a difference, since MST3K was a TV show, they had to be very careful about the rights. In some cases, old MST3Ks will never be seen again (wink, wink) because the use of the film by the MST3K creators was incorrect or expired.
Of course, you can't expect people who write free fan fiction to do this... eventually most of the content on the Internet created by fans will be destroyed. Fortunately, political screeds by demented political extremists (like my own Website ^_-) will be there to take up the slack! Oh, and don't forget the billboards, lots and lots of Internet billboards will be up too... a great future, eh?
Of course, some smart companies with small advertising budgets may take advantage of this and give fans the right to make limited, non-commercial use of their products. (Just don't expect any of those companies to be in MPAA...)
I noticed your page seems somewhat pessimistic, but then I'm something of a pessimist too.
I guess it must be something to do with living under the accursed reign of Reverend Bob Buckhorn, eh?
Oh, so as not to be 100% off-topic, great post BTW. It has that great "Hackers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains." vibe going.
As long as the big corporations can't figure out a way to legally destroy Copyleft, useful Free Software will have a built in "immune system."
However, the stock tumble on Linux stocks will affect my boss's perception of Linux. She already doesn't like Linux (she was talked into using it by higher ups in the company) and would rather be using Windows NT. As a compromise, she'd like to move to a non-free UNIX, because she just doesn't like the concept of Copyleft software. So, when she's gathering evidence against Linux, to get funding approved to buy Solaris, she'll point to the fact, "See, all the Linux stocks tumbled. You don't want to be using this product in the company, do you?" (She's been fighting Linux since the start, she just doesn't like it.)
I suspect some management types, who don't get technology but understand the market, might fall for these arguments. For this reason, I'm hoping the Linux stocks will rally.
If I had any investing money right now (all my money is tied to a down payment on a house :( I'd probably pick up some Caldera stock now. Caldera has a lot going for it (though it isn't my favorite distribution) for example I'm pretty sure they were the first with a Windows like installation process as well as the fact they intigrate their Dr. Dos product and a lot of other commercial products well. Their stock was way cheap the last time I checked, but by the time I get to invest in it I'm sure that won't be the case...
At which point Sony promptly gets sued by Steve Jobs...
This is similar to the Apple commercial with the tanks.
The fact is Sony is willing to use whatever FUD tactics it can to control it's profit base.
Just about any advanced circutry can be converted to weapons use... if you are from a country that doesn't have the advanced circutry. This is why, in the 80's the Russians were buying handheld Pac-Man games to study the technology. It didn't mean that the Pac Man machines were "dangerous weapons" it just meant that the Russians were really badly behind, technology-wise. The PS2 might be more powerful than, say, the stuff they have in Afganistan, but then so is the average laptop. It is certainly not more powerful than what we have in the US... scary to see marketing hype accepted as fact by the government of Japan.
So, Sony goes to the Japanese government and tells them, "We don't want any Sony Playstation 2s to be exported out of the country before they are released in other countries. Say it is because they might be used for dangerous weapons." The government of Japan says, "Yes sir, may we clean your shoes while we're at it?"
Sony gets free publicity, and maximum level security to prevent their valuable toys from getting out of the country.
Oh, and not to pick on Japan, because Sony is part of the Entertainment Trust, which, in this country, has managed to successfully equate content control with "anti-piracy" and has judges going along with it. Compared to Sony, Micros~1 are just amateurs.
It amazes me that people are still probably going to buy from a company that is this despicable and has had such a corrupting influence on the government of its own country and our country. Sigh... the power of advertising, I guess.
Gamers could care less about the Operating System, if a game company produces great games for Linux that everyone wants, gamers will get Linux and stick it on a parttion of their Windows machine. It's not hard, since Windows and Linux are not exclusive, (they can easily exist on the same machine,) there's no reason not to do it.
The real truth is that Windows existence depends on three things in the consumer market, that it has the best Web browser (and I mean significantly better than the Linux Web browser), the best hardware support and that the best games are still written for it.
In the PC gamer market, however, the only thing Windows has going for it is that the majority of good games are still written for it. If a PC gamer sees he can get all the same games he can on Windows, and a few really good, exclusive Linux games on Linux, he/she will switch to Linux (though probably keep Windows on a partition if he still has games he wants for that.) Remember a PC gamer builds his machine specifically for gaming. This means picking out modems and graphics cards with good support for his OS of choice. The only reason Windows is the OS of choice for gaming systems is that it has more games. (In fact it isn't even the Windows OS, it is the DirectX API that means games will run on the system.)
Gamers are not crawling PC sheep (those are a seperate group of users), they go where ever the best games are. Micros~1 had better pray and fight tooth-and-nail to keep Linux from becoming a viable gaming platform, because once it is Windows days are numbered in the consumer market.
Is metamoderation not working? I guess there needs to be something new added.
This is a very ontopic post, and sure didn't deserve to lose a point.
Yeah, Linux is still a niche market, but Linux games are making money. Loki isn't going out of business any time soon.
There is only one thing Linux needs to start to get out of the niche gaming market and into the main stream, and that is a killer game app that every gamer wants but that doesn't have a Windows port. Heck, the game could be packaged with a Linux distribution and partitioning tools, I bet any gamer would love to try it. Gamers are not cowardly little computer users, they have no problem messing with their systems to get that little bit of extra performance out of them. I doubt a userfriendly Linux distribution would intimidate them. People who use their computer for fun are more likely to mess around with it than people who just use it to do work and surf the Web. Of course, you may be an arrogant Micros~1 employee who believes that no one knows about computers and nobody wants to. If that true, why are their even PC gamers at all why doesn't everone just get a Playstation, the epitome of the non-technical users game machine? Even with Playstations, how many people have modified them to play games from other regions (or had one of their tech savvy friends do it? The same guy they'll have set up their Linux partition?). Or maybe you think that the people who pay $60+ for a PC game are just "casual gamers?"
Here's hoping you end up in one of the unprofitable Baby Bills when the government breaks up your company.
Probably a "revenge moderator." You know, someone out to get someone they disagreed with in an earlier post. Irritating, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
Hmm.... now that I think of it, if my Church (the Roman Catholic Church) used to burn and torture people for the crime of heresy, doesn't that make it a cult? Maybe a "legitimate religion" is just a cult that has settled down, sold it's Harley Davidson and biker clothes and bought a station wagon?
Scientology is hardly a mainstream religion so it is probably mostly True Believers. I find that the fervent True Believers who do not allow for the existence of doubt are usually the scariest people in any religion, but religions always start out being composed mostly of those people.
I guess I just have a problem with the idea of unquestioning obedience to any human being, but I figure if people will accept that kind of slavish devotion their ministers or priests why do people work so hard to differentiate cults from religions? I know Scientology is big in Clearwater, but here in Tampa, the scariest people are the ones who come to my apartment at all hours to make sure I've accepted (their version) of Jesus into my heart. It seems like the Church without Walls sends people to my apartment complex at least once a week to push their little pamphlets at everyone, but I doubt anyone would consider them a cult.
So, I have to reiterate Bart Simpson, "Church=cult cult=church, so we're bored someplace else for an hour every Sunday."
Sorry, I guess I'm just worn out and ready to go home...
Interestingly enough, Heinlein groupies in the 70's wanted to form a cult around Stranger in a Strange Land (for obvious reasons) but according to Grumbles from the Grave (Heinlein's collected, post-mortem correspondence) he just would go along with it.
Oh! Does everyone remember the pitched battles between the Scientologists and the Fundamentalists in Friday?
So, when choosing an illuminated group to join, always pick the Bavarian Illuminati over the Servants of Cthuhlu.
However, that doesn't mean that this systems actual design isn't inferior to it's competitors (except Micros~1, unless they have something really amazing that I can't imagine up there sleeve... which I doubt).
This system doesn't sound like a console anymore, it sounds like a new kind of personal computer. In which case, it shouldn't be considered to be competing in the console market.
I say let them, they will soon find (after the initial console zealots decide they have to buy it just because it's a Sony) that simplicity is essential for the console market.
Sega learned this the hard way, after producing two failed peripherals for their system. (hey, I loved my SegaCD but it was a failure from a commercial perspective.) People want consoles to be simple and cheap. If a gamer doesn't mind complexity, he'll buy a PC for game playing.
This complexity is (hopefully, as I want to see Sony fail) going to kill the PS2 in the long run. We've already seen it with a software recall on the PS2. A software recall? On a console? I never heard of that happening before.
Right now Sony zealots are going to be spreading FUD about competing consoles like Dreamcast and Dolphin, so people won't buy them and they won't get any exclusive games (which is what sells console hardware, even moreso than simplicity, unfortunately).
Another way to look at this is that Sony is abandoning the console market in favor of the cheap PC market. In which case, since people will still want consoles, game companies which actually make consoles should still suceed. (That is, unless Sony uses it's monopoly power to indimidate companies out of developing for them or stores out of selling them.)