Haven't you learned anything in economics? People have unlimited wants when they only have limited resources. Life will never be grand and merry for EVERYONE on the planet. There will always be a minority giving orders and there will always be a majority taking orders. ALWAYS.
You sir, speak like a former coworker of mine who developed an O(2^N) algorithm for a simple search. "It won't matter because people have fast enough computers..."
1900 - Factories higher cheap immigrants over American workers. "It used to be that a man could put his 70 hours per week and support his family"
1980 - Manufacturing jobs are replaced by automation and cheaper Japanese facilities - "It used to be that a man could put his 40 hours per week and support his family"
2002 - U.S. Programmers are being outsourced by cheaper Indian labor "It used to be that a man could put in 30 hours per week, slack off at work, drive a sports car, and support his family"
Amazing. I read the comments expecting to see hoopla about government conspiracies to track individuals' book buying habits! Where are you guys tonight?
Why Boycott? I hear people citing game examples like Half-life, which have thrived over user modifications, but this is totally different. The games Battle.net moderates do not require private servers to keep their games running and popular. Games like Quake and Half-life are designed to allow people to be creative however the want to with the game. People can make mods, maps, and run their own server choosing their own game rules. Games like starcraft and Diablo are not like that for the average player. Games like Diablo are especially incompatable with mods. For those games, the average user needs a central median to connect to all the other players. Battle.net does this perfectly, but the key difference between Quake is that it's through Blizard's own servers. That being the case, they have as much right to regulate how the users connect to their servers to play their game. Allowing things like mods for games like Diablo and Starcraft would totally disrupt this, where as it thrives in Quake-style games simply because of the private community behind it. In the case in the article, Blizzard does have a good point. If someone makes a clone battle.net, then they have no way to control bugs or exploits that may come from that. The only way they can be sure that their game is running smothly and efficiently for everyone is if it's through their OWN products.
Well, what business does anyone have to search through anyone elses medians of communication? Whether it is publicly owned phone lines and internet or some private median, monitoring someone elses communication is clearly an invalid search and seizure (Unless the person has already signed their right to privacy away or a warrent has been ordered by court). The ninth amendment guarantees the protection of all rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Privacy is clearly a right not mentioned or specifically defined in a consice way in the constitution.
This does make me nervous at first, but the articles do have a few good points. For example, one says that people give up their privacy when they enter public places. I agree with that. What's the difference between posting a few hundred cameras in public places in a city and posting several hundred police around the areas? Lets be realistic, nobody cares that there are hundreds of military monitoring security at the Olympics..
I remember reading somewhere that there were issues with people trying to patent elements on the periodic table years ago. They were, of course, denied under the reasoning that elements belong to everyone. If we can say that about elements, then surely we can say that DNA belongs to everyone as well.
For real. If Microsoft some how did get absolute control of the hardware and software market, other businesses would simply jump on the opportunity to make customers out of people not satisfied with MS products; maybe not a company in the US, though. Hopefully there will always be some renegade computer corporation (such as apple). Apple is a specifically good example. Though slashdoters may not be apple's intended audience, like them or hate them, companies like apple survive through innovation, bringing us a better product. Apple may not be the g33k thing to have, but we all should be glad the company provides competition to both intel and microsoft. Would we be better of as consumers in the PC market if apple went under years ago? I don't think so.
The whole problem with Microsoft is simply they want people to spend more and more on THEM. Yah, just about every business or corporation is driven by consumer spending, but when they go to the lengths to eliminate competition and restrict consumer privileges it gets totally out of hand. Restricting consumer privileges is what this whole issue is about, right? Microsoft wants consumers to spend more on their products by eliminating the option for consumers to spend on a competing product; illegal and unorthodox business practices in the US the last time I checked. Considering Microsoft has made a clone to just about every popular software product, this is obvious (I even hear in XP they threw out Java and are replacing it with C#). Like Microsoft, the music industry too would rather restrict peoples' use of mp3s--ethically or not--and see them buying CDs and such. Ultimately, Microsoft is a monopoly bent on eliminating any competition in order to increase its own revenue, it's using unfair and illegal business practices, and the computer industry would be better if there was an equal competitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember what happened on Alderaan? Once nations develop the weapons capable of destroying planets there will be a massive arms race anyway.
Haven't you learned anything in economics? People have unlimited wants when they only have limited resources. Life will never be grand and merry for EVERYONE on the planet. There will always be a minority giving orders and there will always be a majority taking orders. ALWAYS.
You sir, speak like a former coworker of mine who developed an O(2^N) algorithm for a simple search. "It won't matter because people have fast enough computers..."
1900 - Factories higher cheap immigrants over American workers. "It used to be that a man could put his 70 hours per week and support his family" 1980 - Manufacturing jobs are replaced by automation and cheaper Japanese facilities - "It used to be that a man could put his 40 hours per week and support his family" 2002 - U.S. Programmers are being outsourced by cheaper Indian labor "It used to be that a man could put in 30 hours per week, slack off at work, drive a sports car, and support his family"
I agree. Haven't any of you had a slice of salami put into your CD burner before?
Amazing. I read the comments expecting to see hoopla about government conspiracies to track individuals' book buying habits! Where are you guys tonight?
It's called IGNORANCE.
Just wait until the right wing Baptist preachers hear about this one!
Why Boycott? I hear people citing game examples like Half-life, which have thrived over user modifications, but this is totally different. The games Battle.net moderates do not require private servers to keep their games running and popular. Games like Quake and Half-life are designed to allow people to be creative however the want to with the game. People can make mods, maps, and run their own server choosing their own game rules. Games like starcraft and Diablo are not like that for the average player. Games like Diablo are especially incompatable with mods. For those games, the average user needs a central median to connect to all the other players. Battle.net does this perfectly, but the key difference between Quake is that it's through Blizard's own servers. That being the case, they have as much right to regulate how the users connect to their servers to play their game. Allowing things like mods for games like Diablo and Starcraft would totally disrupt this, where as it thrives in Quake-style games simply because of the private community behind it. In the case in the article, Blizzard does have a good point. If someone makes a clone battle.net, then they have no way to control bugs or exploits that may come from that. The only way they can be sure that their game is running smothly and efficiently for everyone is if it's through their OWN products.
Well, what business does anyone have to search through anyone elses medians of communication? Whether it is publicly owned phone lines and internet or some private median, monitoring someone elses communication is clearly an invalid search and seizure (Unless the person has already signed their right to privacy away or a warrent has been ordered by court). The ninth amendment guarantees the protection of all rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Privacy is clearly a right not mentioned or specifically defined in a consice way in the constitution.
This does make me nervous at first, but the articles do have a few good points. For example, one says that people give up their privacy when they enter public places. I agree with that. What's the difference between posting a few hundred cameras in public places in a city and posting several hundred police around the areas? Lets be realistic, nobody cares that there are hundreds of military monitoring security at the Olympics..
I remember reading somewhere that there were issues with people trying to patent elements on the periodic table years ago. They were, of course, denied under the reasoning that elements belong to everyone. If we can say that about elements, then surely we can say that DNA belongs to everyone as well.
...Or it could be another one of those pesky schemes from Big Brother to tag where we travel!
For real. If Microsoft some how did get absolute control of the hardware and software market, other businesses would simply jump on the opportunity to make customers out of people not satisfied with MS products; maybe not a company in the US, though. Hopefully there will always be some renegade computer corporation (such as apple). Apple is a specifically good example. Though slashdoters may not be apple's intended audience, like them or hate them, companies like apple survive through innovation, bringing us a better product. Apple may not be the g33k thing to have, but we all should be glad the company provides competition to both intel and microsoft. Would we be better of as consumers in the PC market if apple went under years ago? I don't think so.
The whole problem with Microsoft is simply they want people to spend more and more on THEM. Yah, just about every business or corporation is driven by consumer spending, but when they go to the lengths to eliminate competition and restrict consumer privileges it gets totally out of hand. Restricting consumer privileges is what this whole issue is about, right? Microsoft wants consumers to spend more on their products by eliminating the option for consumers to spend on a competing product; illegal and unorthodox business practices in the US the last time I checked. Considering Microsoft has made a clone to just about every popular software product, this is obvious (I even hear in XP they threw out Java and are replacing it with C#). Like Microsoft, the music industry too would rather restrict peoples' use of mp3s--ethically or not--and see them buying CDs and such. Ultimately, Microsoft is a monopoly bent on eliminating any competition in order to increase its own revenue, it's using unfair and illegal business practices, and the computer industry would be better if there was an equal competitor.