Take a look at how the internet is handled in public libraries. They've already started putting filters on library access to prevent certain material from being brought up. I believe that the issue is currently in court, but depending on the outcome, the original poster has a very valid point.
Yes, I wrote about the changes they seem to be making to MSDN subscriptions in this JE.
It really ticks me off the the MSDN Universal subscription was described as including all the latest and greatest developer tools and now that they are coming out with some really great tools, they are going to stop including them.
The key argument for open source vs closed source is: The source is available, you can support/develop it by your own or hire in support/development/warranty, now try that with closed source
The problem is that most companies don't want to do this for commodity-type software. They would rather spend the extra money to buy something from a large, well-known company that will support it for them, rather than deal with hiring developers to support the software themselves. While you, and others, may disagree, it's the course of action many companies would rather take.
Ultimately, the argument could be best made for using open source software if there is a strong company supporing the open source for you, that is expected to be around in the years to come. This way you have the source if you absolutely must have it, yet you still have someone to look to for support.
Microsoft said subscribers will be able to select content such as sports clips, news headlines and music videos from the MSN Video Downloads Web site
Is there some rule that states any mobile video must consist of sports clips, news clips and music videos? (Verizon, I'm looking at you with "VCast"). Seriously, everytime legal downloads of video content are discussed on cell phones or from the internet, these three are always mentioned. Well, I don't watch any of that. Does anyone really want to just watch sports clips on their mobile device? I enjoy sports an all, but I don't want to pay just to see a few clips. And music videos? I guess that's to cater to the teen crowd.
When will I be able to legally download an episode of 24? Or some other show that I actually watch? I don't want snippets of video here and there. I want to watch a freakin' show. I guess I'll stick to torrents when I forget to program my VCR.
I checked out the compatibility guide for the device (which is in a PDF file for no reason) to see if my laptop was compatible. They have a huge list of devices, and there appears to be some sort of color coding to the whole thing, but they never explain it. It looks like if it is red, it's not compatible, but they never explain what the multitude of other colors mean in the PDF file.
For Greatest Slashdot Post of 2005. Well done man.
Re:Sure they're playing.
on
Girls Got Game
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is there some sort of Slashdot Law that states whenever the topic of girls and gaming comes up, there must immediately be a link to that article? Give it a rest.
I honestly don't have a problem with the idea of DRM. I understand that when I purchase copyrighted material, I'm not actually transfering ownership of what I'm purchasing. My biggest concern with DRM is that the things I am licensing may become unavailable to me for whatever reason. Say I purchase a DRM'ed WMA file. Now say that my computer explodes mysteriously and I have to purchase a new one. Even though I may have backed up my previous data, this new DRM'ed file may be of no use to me if the one who provided the file for me is no longer in existence. I don't like that.
If there must be some form of DRM, I'd rather see it be in the form of watermarking, so publishers can punish those who distribute the works they've licensed to other people. Of course, you do run into issues where someone's computer may have been hacked.
Ultimately, the works are already floating around in an illegal fashion. I guess I don't see the point of DRM anyway. The purpose of DRM is to stop you from copying the file in some manner so you can't share it with others. Since people already have access to unencumbered media files, and probably will forever, there just doesn't seem to be a point to the whole thing.
So naming one game on the PSP negates my point that Nintendo makes a lot of games that could appeal to women? Thanks for your insightful commentary. I hate to break it to you, but not every discussion has to be a piss-match between Sony and Nintendo.
I think the deciding factor for me is expectations I have from portable gaming. When I want to play a portable system, it is usually in short increments. For this reason, I'm looking for 1) Fast Load Times, 2) Simplistic gameplay. This is one of the reasons I love my GBA SP. I can turn it on, play for a little bit, and turn it back off. I also enjoy the fact that I have a large selection of more "old school" classic-style gameplay on my GBA SP since they aren't offered much on the consoles anymore.
When I look at the PSP, I see a mini-console. I don't know if I'm really interested in that sort of thing. I don't want all of the same games I play on my console, I want something different. Now, with that said, the library of DS games right now suck, so I'm passing on that as well until we can see what Nintendo can do.
I thought the writer made an interesting point about women digging the Nintendo DS. I've found that women generally seem to like the things Nintendo has to offer, and not just with the DS. When my wife and I have our couple friends over, it's funny to see the women in the group actually WANT to play video games because they want to play things like Mario Party and Donkey Konga. And my wife loves her Nintendo DS with Wario Ware (although she is wanting another game at this point). I think there is a real opportunity for Nintendo to capture a large number of non-traditional gamers with its products. Unfortunately, it can be a difficult proposition because it seems that most women get their video game experiences through more hardcore gamers, so unless Nintendo can get a foothold in with the hardcore gamers, they may not be able to capture anthing.
2D movies already provide pretty much all of these, but to get the even more dramatic "3D" effect, you need to feed a different image to each eye. Until Star Wars style holograms, that's how they all function. If you've only got vision in one eye, you're naturally stuck at the current "2D" level.
That's what I would guess, but I have noticed in one particular 3d movie I watched, I was picking up on 3d. It was Captain Eo (I think that's what it was called) at Disneyland. What was interesting was that if you watched the movie without the glasses it seemed as if there were four lines around all the 3d objects. When I would put the glasses on, it became 2 lines around the 3d object and I think I was picking up on some of the 3d effects.
I believe that while you do gain some of your depth perception, especially up close, is done by the brain registering the differences in angles of your eye. However, remember that when something is further away, it looks smaller, so that's a natural way of providing depth.
Interesting side-note: I noticed when games first moved to 3D, I had a much easier time picking up the visual clues than people with normal vision. For instance, I would watch people play Super Mario 64 and attempt to stand in the right position to hit a block above them. I couldn't figure out why it was so difficult. Then I realized I would naturally place my character directly under the box by using the shadow that would appear underneath it. I believe this was a more natural behavior for me because my brain has been trained to use these sorts of clues to pick up on depth. Of course, I still SUCK at baseball.
And for a test, try covering one eye and looking around. You'll notice you still can see in 3D.:-)
Anyone have any information on how these 3d films are different from past attempts at 3d? Do you still wear glasses? If not, how would this look any different than a normal film?
Due to the fact that I can only see out of one eye, I'm usually let down by such presentations of 3d. They all depend on the viewer wearing a set of glasses and being able to see out of 2 eyes. I wonder if this new 3d technology can actually do anything for people like me?
Except that the only reason the GPL has any teeth is BECAUSE of copyright. If you get rid of copyright, then how can you distribute free code and ensure that the users of the code release their changes back to the community? If copyright was done away with, at least in regards to code, what stops me from modifying the Linux code, compiling and selling my modified version without releasing the source?
Sony isn't about to market the PS3 as anything more than a game machine -- I don't think they're popular as dvd players anymore, even in Japan (the remote control interface isn't so great, for one)
The key word there is "anymore". When the PS2 first came out in Japan, many people were buying them without even purchasing a game to begin with because DVD players were just starting to take off. Many people in the US did the same. Sony is in the perfect position when they release the PS3 to capture the same advantage.
Come on, let's not get bogged down by simplistic logic. My point wasn't that it was because Sony was behind the format, it's that it is the format of the Playstation 3. The products you mentioned were not nearly as successful as the Playstation 2. It's fully expected by many that Sony will probably get a huge share of the console market in the next generation of consoles also. By extention, these people will automatically own Blu-Ray disc players. It's an immediate and huge market penetration.
I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the PS3 on the format wars. The fact Sony is (obviously) using their own Blu-Ray format for their next generation console could mean an early victory for their format.
It looks like rather than try to reinvent the wheel, they are utilizing SourceForge for hosting their code. It's nice to see that they aren't suffering from "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at how the internet is handled in public libraries. They've already started putting filters on library access to prevent certain material from being brought up. I believe that the issue is currently in court, but depending on the outcome, the original poster has a very valid point.
Oh, someone pointed that out to me. I can't take credit for it.
Using AdBlock combined with a good filterset took care of the Drudge Report for me.
Yes, I wrote about the changes they seem to be making to MSDN subscriptions in this JE.
It really ticks me off the the MSDN Universal subscription was described as including all the latest and greatest developer tools and now that they are coming out with some really great tools, they are going to stop including them.
The problem is that most companies don't want to do this for commodity-type software. They would rather spend the extra money to buy something from a large, well-known company that will support it for them, rather than deal with hiring developers to support the software themselves. While you, and others, may disagree, it's the course of action many companies would rather take.
Ultimately, the argument could be best made for using open source software if there is a strong company supporing the open source for you, that is expected to be around in the years to come. This way you have the source if you absolutely must have it, yet you still have someone to look to for support.
From the ZDNet article:
Is there some rule that states any mobile video must consist of sports clips, news clips and music videos? (Verizon, I'm looking at you with "VCast"). Seriously, everytime legal downloads of video content are discussed on cell phones or from the internet, these three are always mentioned. Well, I don't watch any of that. Does anyone really want to just watch sports clips on their mobile device? I enjoy sports an all, but I don't want to pay just to see a few clips. And music videos? I guess that's to cater to the teen crowd.
When will I be able to legally download an episode of 24? Or some other show that I actually watch? I don't want snippets of video here and there. I want to watch a freakin' show. I guess I'll stick to torrents when I forget to program my VCR.
I checked out the compatibility guide for the device (which is in a PDF file for no reason) to see if my laptop was compatible. They have a huge list of devices, and there appears to be some sort of color coding to the whole thing, but they never explain it. It looks like if it is red, it's not compatible, but they never explain what the multitude of other colors mean in the PDF file.
FUD.
I'd hardly call "HTML" an encryption method.
For Greatest Slashdot Post of 2005. Well done man.
Is there some sort of Slashdot Law that states whenever the topic of girls and gaming comes up, there must immediately be a link to that article? Give it a rest.
I honestly don't have a problem with the idea of DRM. I understand that when I purchase copyrighted material, I'm not actually transfering ownership of what I'm purchasing. My biggest concern with DRM is that the things I am licensing may become unavailable to me for whatever reason. Say I purchase a DRM'ed WMA file. Now say that my computer explodes mysteriously and I have to purchase a new one. Even though I may have backed up my previous data, this new DRM'ed file may be of no use to me if the one who provided the file for me is no longer in existence. I don't like that.
If there must be some form of DRM, I'd rather see it be in the form of watermarking, so publishers can punish those who distribute the works they've licensed to other people. Of course, you do run into issues where someone's computer may have been hacked.
Ultimately, the works are already floating around in an illegal fashion. I guess I don't see the point of DRM anyway. The purpose of DRM is to stop you from copying the file in some manner so you can't share it with others. Since people already have access to unencumbered media files, and probably will forever, there just doesn't seem to be a point to the whole thing.
Man, you really don't get it do you? I'm not arguing PSP vs. DS. I'm not arguing Sony vs. Nintendo.
Please though, continue having your imaginary fanboy fights.
So naming one game on the PSP negates my point that Nintendo makes a lot of games that could appeal to women? Thanks for your insightful commentary. I hate to break it to you, but not every discussion has to be a piss-match between Sony and Nintendo.
I think the deciding factor for me is expectations I have from portable gaming. When I want to play a portable system, it is usually in short increments. For this reason, I'm looking for 1) Fast Load Times, 2) Simplistic gameplay. This is one of the reasons I love my GBA SP. I can turn it on, play for a little bit, and turn it back off. I also enjoy the fact that I have a large selection of more "old school" classic-style gameplay on my GBA SP since they aren't offered much on the consoles anymore.
When I look at the PSP, I see a mini-console. I don't know if I'm really interested in that sort of thing. I don't want all of the same games I play on my console, I want something different. Now, with that said, the library of DS games right now suck, so I'm passing on that as well until we can see what Nintendo can do.
I thought the writer made an interesting point about women digging the Nintendo DS. I've found that women generally seem to like the things Nintendo has to offer, and not just with the DS. When my wife and I have our couple friends over, it's funny to see the women in the group actually WANT to play video games because they want to play things like Mario Party and Donkey Konga. And my wife loves her Nintendo DS with Wario Ware (although she is wanting another game at this point). I think there is a real opportunity for Nintendo to capture a large number of non-traditional gamers with its products. Unfortunately, it can be a difficult proposition because it seems that most women get their video game experiences through more hardcore gamers, so unless Nintendo can get a foothold in with the hardcore gamers, they may not be able to capture anthing.
No, my other eye is a glass eye. Sounds like a bumper sticker.
That's what I would guess, but I have noticed in one particular 3d movie I watched, I was picking up on 3d. It was Captain Eo (I think that's what it was called) at Disneyland. What was interesting was that if you watched the movie without the glasses it seemed as if there were four lines around all the 3d objects. When I would put the glasses on, it became 2 lines around the 3d object and I think I was picking up on some of the 3d effects.
I believe that while you do gain some of your depth perception, especially up close, is done by the brain registering the differences in angles of your eye. However, remember that when something is further away, it looks smaller, so that's a natural way of providing depth.
Interesting side-note: I noticed when games first moved to 3D, I had a much easier time picking up the visual clues than people with normal vision. For instance, I would watch people play Super Mario 64 and attempt to stand in the right position to hit a block above them. I couldn't figure out why it was so difficult. Then I realized I would naturally place my character directly under the box by using the shadow that would appear underneath it. I believe this was a more natural behavior for me because my brain has been trained to use these sorts of clues to pick up on depth. Of course, I still SUCK at baseball.
And for a test, try covering one eye and looking around. You'll notice you still can see in 3D. :-)
Anyone have any information on how these 3d films are different from past attempts at 3d? Do you still wear glasses? If not, how would this look any different than a normal film?
Due to the fact that I can only see out of one eye, I'm usually let down by such presentations of 3d. They all depend on the viewer wearing a set of glasses and being able to see out of 2 eyes. I wonder if this new 3d technology can actually do anything for people like me?
Fair enough.
P.S. - I'm marking down this date as the day I received a well-thought out, understandable response from someone on Slashdot.
Except that the only reason the GPL has any teeth is BECAUSE of copyright. If you get rid of copyright, then how can you distribute free code and ensure that the users of the code release their changes back to the community? If copyright was done away with, at least in regards to code, what stops me from modifying the Linux code, compiling and selling my modified version without releasing the source?
The key word there is "anymore". When the PS2 first came out in Japan, many people were buying them without even purchasing a game to begin with because DVD players were just starting to take off. Many people in the US did the same. Sony is in the perfect position when they release the PS3 to capture the same advantage.
Come on, let's not get bogged down by simplistic logic. My point wasn't that it was because Sony was behind the format, it's that it is the format of the Playstation 3. The products you mentioned were not nearly as successful as the Playstation 2. It's fully expected by many that Sony will probably get a huge share of the console market in the next generation of consoles also. By extention, these people will automatically own Blu-Ray disc players. It's an immediate and huge market penetration.
I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the PS3 on the format wars. The fact Sony is (obviously) using their own Blu-Ray format for their next generation console could mean an early victory for their format.
It looks like rather than try to reinvent the wheel, they are utilizing SourceForge for hosting their code. It's nice to see that they aren't suffering from "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
*arms flailing*