You can transfer your character from one realm to another for free. Blizzard is considering making, most likely, a one to any (of the same type) realm transfer at any time available for a fee.
So if your realm is too busy and you want to play with friends, you could opt to have your toon transfered to a low pop server even if it's not accepting free transfers from your realm, and free transfers aren't scheduled at the time you do transfer. (After all, right now you can't choose what realm you're transferring to.)
Blizz knows that it'd be dumb for lack of one person to hold up 79 others.
I've been queued for Arathi Basin, and entered only to find I was the only one on my side versus 6 on the other. With too few people, however, it'll terminate the battleground within 5 minutes.
I'm not the only person in this boat. However I'm a 3rd year CS student with about 7 years summer-work experience. Doesn't make it any easier finding internships however.
Expect to be very geographically limited, unless you have a super-spectacular resume you can fire at people. I'm looking for out of state internships (currently in Arkansas) and after a year in Japan I'm trying to find one in or near a large city.
I applied online to Apple, however I doubt I'll hear anything from them (after all, I'm not from some big name university with miraculous projects to show.) I'll probably be looking in-state, but sadly accepting an internship will probably mean I'll be eating my savings working for free for some large company instead of actually earning money.
Basically, best of luck. It's far from easy unless your university has connections, people you know have connections, or your university generally gets high traffic from tech companies.
(If this sounds pessimistic it's cause I've been scouring for places, but all the companes I'd be interested in interning at seem to only want people in their local area or from universities they actually visit, which means big, expensive universities. Oh and it's yet more learning you have to pay for, despite them benifiting from it.)
I'm sure if we had an ineffectual police force, theft would be equally rampant. The only difference is that it's much harder to get away with physically stealing something than downloading it.
People have no philosophical basis for downloading movies, music, etc. in violation of copyright except for the fact that they CAN, they likely won't get CAUGHT, and they can get what they want for FREE.
There is no demand for change here. People simply like to enjoy others works without paying for it, it's only a matter of how far most people are willing to go.
(After all, people speed all the time. Guess that means we should let people go as fast as they want, everywhere.)
If that's true then I could bypass the GPL by selling people PCs using cell-phone company like contracts. Loophole!
Unless of course you're wrong. I am the end user. And the GPL does not fail to apply to me just because I'm buying it from Cingular instead of directly from Motorola. When I get a contract, I pay for the phone either through the duration of the contract or contract + whatever extra.
Hardly. There are few homebrew games out there worth playing as the majority of development seems focused on ripping games and running them or emulators from the memory stick. Never mind that the majority of people out there will never touch the homebrew scene.
The reason it's selling poorly is cause there's shit-all for games on the system and it costs $250. And -both- are reasons I bought my DS ($150, came with a game, and there's TONS of games available to choose from.)
For most people who download stuff, no sense of "compensation" really comes into play, as their willingness to pay goes to zero.
Quite simply, by and large people download because they are greedy themselves, and wouldn't pay a cent for anything if they could get away with it. And this is how they can.
So we have greed on both sides of the table. One wants everything free, one wants nothing outside of their grasp. The latter is a reaction to the former, and does not suprise me in the least. I don't like it, but hey, the masses have loudly stated that they won't play (or pay) fair if they don't have to.
How about this: 30 minutes of animation can cost between $30k and $300k, or more, depending on the quality you desire.
Multiply that by 13 for one season and you've got a lot if it's a well animated show. Multiply it by two or four (some shows run a full year) and you're chalking up hefty costs.
I guess since recorded media has no value, they'll have to find some way of doing animation live? Apparently since it can be digitized and copied at zero cost, the work must have zero value, and apparently zero production value. Do the slashbots have some solution for things that have high fixed costs?
He's the CEO that came back and saved Apple, giving us the iMac, iPod, and MacOS X.
He also presents his company's creations with a flair that Bill G. simply doesn't have, and other companies simply can't muster cause their products really don't have any style.
Paris Hilton is famous too, but honestly for reasons I cannot fathom. Is stupidity that popular?
Games may not use the full capacity of a dual layer DVD, but somehow I suspect it's due to hardware limitations. What with HD output on all of the new consoles and likely online-play, diversity and high resolution will be the name of the game.
That and some PS2 models have a hell of a time reading dual layer DVDs, which is why some games were on two DVD-5s instead of a DVD-9.
You'll need bigger textures, higher resolution video, more detailed models, more models, more maps, etc.
And that will all eat space, even if compressed. The first game that truly uses HD to its limit will likely eat the space of a DVD-9 like candy. I fully expect to see multi-disc DVD-9 games for the xbox360 due to the media constraints. I also expect to see PS3 games on a potentially wide range of media, from CDs to BD-ROMs (after all, not every PS2 game was on DVD media, quite a few were CD based.)
Subscription is good, I guess, if you like not having any control over your music library and like to forever pay. People are suprised when they find out that "Plays for Sure" doesn't mean zero issues, but instead means that the player will wipe all songs after a given date.
At least in the US, reversion to the terms as set forth in the Constitution would probably be the best step.
Abolition of Trademark would simply sew confusion and opportunism, as a thousand companies would suddenly share the same name. Building a reputation as a company would be meaningless, as someone could simply co-opt your name and logo.
Or just plain confuse. There was a "Lexus Chicken" I remember seeing several years ago in the Bahamas. Same logo and everything.
Abolition of Copyright would be VERY damaging. While it is by no means essential to encourage creation, it a very big incentive and allows investment without worry that twenty dvd replicators won't start stamping out and selling copies for less than you can. An author couldn't publish a book because soon book store chains would produce their own copies. Sure he could sell online but frankly, e-books suck.
It'd affect GPL software too, since a lot of people contribute to projects because they agree with the exchange the GPL makes (they give their source in exchange for your source, should you distribute.) This goes out the window without copyright and changed versions could be distributed without source.
The questions raised now regarding online distribution will have to be ironed out. I personally think it's doubtful that a show sold only online could ever hope to compete with free copies, especially if p2p sharing reached a MUCH larger audience than it currently does. You would see shows made, but the costs would have to be extremely low and this can (and does) impact quality. I liken it to animation, where the quality of a given set of animation corresponds almost directly to the cost. Doesn't cover for writing and direction, but unless you want your show to look like crap you have to put up a non-trivial amount of money.
As for patents, I'll let someone who's actually worked with them comment.
Those few who still feel they have to follow copyright laws Yeah, we should all stick our cocks in the mouths of artists and musicians, and tell them to just suck it.
Their work isn't worth shit, no matter how much we enjoy it.
Re:So stop withholding the product
on
Free P2P In France?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They don't want to work with the internet, because they fear piracy. Well considering the way the general populace of the internet has behaved, I don't blame them.
And in doing that, they are directly responsible for most of the file trading. False. Movies are traded on P2P because people like getting shit for free. There's really no philosophy, unless it's mentioned and people hide behind one "Uh yeah, cause I can't buy it. Right." It's only a question of whether it's J-Random-Warezd00d or the studio releasing it unprotected first. The feeding frenzy that is p2p trading would be just as vigorous.
Yes because then they could cram through every last bit of legislation they like and say "oh fuck you" to anyone they don't. Such a one-sided government would be wonderful, wouldn't it?
Then we can and we can really get something done. Yes, they can piss on the constitution and no one can interfere. NO ONE.
The simple fact is that musicians, authors, and movie producers create something that is physically intangiable. Both a mechanic and a hair stylist charge for their labor. And physics consists of the natural world, which exists beyond them.
What's you're essentially saying is that there is no value in a work itself, only the labor. And sure, you can go ahead and do this. It's called a work for hire.
This is generally how movies and music are made. The only difference is the cost is abstracted from the musicians and producers by companies who foot the bill.
I see all the time people bitching on Slashdot that they'd NEVER go see a movie, buy a music CD, or buy a TV show on DVD if not for being able to download it first. Then there are the freeloaders who never buy at all. Since those two combined consist of the majority of P2P filesharers, the method you describe would pretty much result in a near total stop in the number of works being produced.
I'd like to see if the existing fanbase for a show like Firefly could foot the per-episode production cost. Somehow I doubt it, without paying many times what they do now.
The PS3 will be high-def out of the box. Sony won't stand to release anything less, especially when Microsoft is doing HD. It's already rated for 1080p, which I don't doubt Sony can accomplish.
The XBOX360 is using a dated format that game manufacturers have maxed. I'm sure space even on DVD-9s will become tight as higher res textures and models are packed into games. Speculation states that the DRM system on blu-ray could be used to brick your system (remember, it's the DRM system, not the media), but we've seen no evidence of this yet. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't hesitate to brick your xbox360 if they found out you had installed a mod (after all, that's why it's a TPM machine from the ground up, designed to protect IT from YOU.)
And Microsoft's game discs are just as proprietary as any other. I don't see how the ps3 using funky-ray media would be any different, considering they're meant for use with their respective consoles only.
Indeed, who needs seven controllers. Who knows, maybe someone will come up with an idea for it.
1) I don't necessarily want to have to pay to play online. With the xbox360 you have no choice, developers MUST go through xbox live. Sony leaves this choice open to developers. Oh it's only $50 a year, so what. It's $50 I don't want to be required to pay.
2) The xbox360 is not available now. Microsoft deliberately made it unavailable to all but the most nutty willing to spend $400 to $800 on it. And now it's sold out and won't be available again until next year or so.
3) Bungie is good, although Halo left me unimpressed. Rare not so, with 2 games since MS purchased them. And FF is only stated to be FFXI, which has been out on PC and PS2 since its inception. And EA will sign on to every console maker, they'd be extremely stupid not to.
Why not xbox360?
Because there's not a damn game available for it that I want. That and it's unavailable and costs $400. And there's no guarantee that it actually is any better than the PS3, considering the PS3 isn't even out yet. And that I won't be getting for a long time either, until the price drops to $200 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Yay! Irrational knee-jerk comment!
You can transfer your character from one realm to another for free. Blizzard is considering making, most likely, a one to any (of the same type) realm transfer at any time available for a fee.
So if your realm is too busy and you want to play with friends, you could opt to have your toon transfered to a low pop server even if it's not accepting free transfers from your realm, and free transfers aren't scheduled at the time you do transfer. (After all, right now you can't choose what realm you're transferring to.)
Close cases like that don't exist.
Blizz knows that it'd be dumb for lack of one person to hold up 79 others.
I've been queued for Arathi Basin, and entered only to find I was the only one on my side versus 6 on the other. With too few people, however, it'll terminate the battleground within 5 minutes.
I'm not the only person in this boat. However I'm a 3rd year CS student with about 7 years summer-work experience. Doesn't make it any easier finding internships however.
Expect to be very geographically limited, unless you have a super-spectacular resume you can fire at people. I'm looking for out of state internships (currently in Arkansas) and after a year in Japan I'm trying to find one in or near a large city.
I applied online to Apple, however I doubt I'll hear anything from them (after all, I'm not from some big name university with miraculous projects to show.) I'll probably be looking in-state, but sadly accepting an internship will probably mean I'll be eating my savings working for free for some large company instead of actually earning money.
Basically, best of luck. It's far from easy unless your university has connections, people you know have connections, or your university generally gets high traffic from tech companies.
(If this sounds pessimistic it's cause I've been scouring for places, but all the companes I'd be interested in interning at seem to only want people in their local area or from universities they actually visit, which means big, expensive universities. Oh and it's yet more learning you have to pay for, despite them benifiting from it.)
This is not a cyclical thing, nor is it "you can never resell electronics."
This is "stuff sold before 2001 can't be resold unless you can prove it meets current saftey standards."
And considering that electrical fires can be a bit of a hazard over there (it's like the 1950s on their electrical sockets) I'm not suprised.
The problem stems in that the developer:
- recieves funds to create the work
- delivers the work
and if Sony, who now owns the work entirely, decides not to publish the developers:
- are in the hole for the entire development cost
- do not get back their work
I'm sure if we had an ineffectual police force, theft would be equally rampant. The only difference is that it's much harder to get away with physically stealing something than downloading it.
People have no philosophical basis for downloading movies, music, etc. in violation of copyright except for the fact that they CAN, they likely won't get CAUGHT, and they can get what they want for FREE.
There is no demand for change here. People simply like to enjoy others works without paying for it, it's only a matter of how far most people are willing to go.
(After all, people speed all the time. Guess that means we should let people go as fast as they want, everywhere.)
!fark
And I don't mind anyone sticking it to them, I'm just skeptical of that interpretation.
That's the most public form of the word "private" I've ever seen.
Somehow I doubt copying is truly "private" if it involves people you don't know, who could possibly number in the thousands or more...
Wait what?
I'm not the end user?
If that's true then I could bypass the GPL by selling people PCs using cell-phone company like contracts. Loophole!
Unless of course you're wrong. I am the end user. And the GPL does not fail to apply to me just because I'm buying it from Cingular instead of directly from Motorola. When I get a contract, I pay for the phone either through the duration of the contract or contract + whatever extra.
Until he tells me where I can find Mithril and Truesilver deposits.
Hardly. There are few homebrew games out there worth playing as the majority of development seems focused on ripping games and running them or emulators from the memory stick. Never mind that the majority of people out there will never touch the homebrew scene.
The reason it's selling poorly is cause there's shit-all for games on the system and it costs $250. And -both- are reasons I bought my DS ($150, came with a game, and there's TONS of games available to choose from.)
Well depends on what you mean by "loss."
For most people who download stuff, no sense of "compensation" really comes into play, as their willingness to pay goes to zero.
Quite simply, by and large people download because they are greedy themselves, and wouldn't pay a cent for anything if they could get away with it. And this is how they can.
So we have greed on both sides of the table. One wants everything free, one wants nothing outside of their grasp. The latter is a reaction to the former, and does not suprise me in the least. I don't like it, but hey, the masses have loudly stated that they won't play (or pay) fair if they don't have to.
Great, explain how someone makes anything that has significant costs?
Such as 30 minutes of animation, which can vary from $30,000 to $300,000 and up.
Glad to know music is so worthles^Wcheap.
How about this: 30 minutes of animation can cost between $30k and $300k, or more, depending on the quality you desire.
Multiply that by 13 for one season and you've got a lot if it's a well animated show. Multiply it by two or four (some shows run a full year) and you're chalking up hefty costs.
I guess since recorded media has no value, they'll have to find some way of doing animation live? Apparently since it can be digitized and copied at zero cost, the work must have zero value, and apparently zero production value. Do the slashbots have some solution for things that have high fixed costs?
frankly I'd rather buy a flash linker and play them on a cheap GBA SP
Glad to know you're more than happy to shortchange the developers.
If you enjoy the game you should at least pay for it.
Oh that's right. Paying for anything that can be copied is passe on slashdot, after all if it can be copied it couldn't have cost ANYTHING to make...
Why he's famous should be obvious.
He's the CEO that came back and saved Apple, giving us the iMac, iPod, and MacOS X.
He also presents his company's creations with a flair that Bill G. simply doesn't have, and other companies simply can't muster cause their products really don't have any style.
Paris Hilton is famous too, but honestly for reasons I cannot fathom. Is stupidity that popular?
Games may not use the full capacity of a dual layer DVD, but somehow I suspect it's due to hardware limitations. What with HD output on all of the new consoles and likely online-play, diversity and high resolution will be the name of the game.
That and some PS2 models have a hell of a time reading dual layer DVDs, which is why some games were on two DVD-5s instead of a DVD-9.
You'll need bigger textures, higher resolution video, more detailed models, more models, more maps, etc.
And that will all eat space, even if compressed. The first game that truly uses HD to its limit will likely eat the space of a DVD-9 like candy. I fully expect to see multi-disc DVD-9 games for the xbox360 due to the media constraints. I also expect to see PS3 games on a potentially wide range of media, from CDs to BD-ROMs (after all, not every PS2 game was on DVD media, quite a few were CD based.)
Plays for sure and deletes for sure.
Subscription is good, I guess, if you like not having any control over your music library and like to forever pay. People are suprised when they find out that "Plays for Sure" doesn't mean zero issues, but instead means that the player will wipe all songs after a given date.
At least in the US, reversion to the terms as set forth in the Constitution would probably be the best step.
Abolition of Trademark would simply sew confusion and opportunism, as a thousand companies would suddenly share the same name. Building a reputation as a company would be meaningless, as someone could simply co-opt your name and logo.
Or just plain confuse. There was a "Lexus Chicken" I remember seeing several years ago in the Bahamas. Same logo and everything.
Abolition of Copyright would be VERY damaging. While it is by no means essential to encourage creation, it a very big incentive and allows investment without worry that twenty dvd replicators won't start stamping out and selling copies for less than you can. An author couldn't publish a book because soon book store chains would produce their own copies. Sure he could sell online but frankly, e-books suck.
It'd affect GPL software too, since a lot of people contribute to projects because they agree with the exchange the GPL makes (they give their source in exchange for your source, should you distribute.) This goes out the window without copyright and changed versions could be distributed without source.
The questions raised now regarding online distribution will have to be ironed out. I personally think it's doubtful that a show sold only online could ever hope to compete with free copies, especially if p2p sharing reached a MUCH larger audience than it currently does. You would see shows made, but the costs would have to be extremely low and this can (and does) impact quality. I liken it to animation, where the quality of a given set of animation corresponds almost directly to the cost. Doesn't cover for writing and direction, but unless you want your show to look like crap you have to put up a non-trivial amount of money.
As for patents, I'll let someone who's actually worked with them comment.
Wait, then why does my machine run Windows and only Windows?
I bought all the parts myself and put the thing together, surely I should be running linux?
Oh wait, then I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do, like play games. Or use my USB WiFi adaptor.
Those few who still feel they have to follow copyright laws
Yeah, we should all stick our cocks in the mouths of artists and musicians, and tell them to just suck it.
Their work isn't worth shit, no matter how much we enjoy it.
They don't want to work with the internet, because they fear piracy.
Well considering the way the general populace of the internet has behaved, I don't blame them.
And in doing that, they are directly responsible for most of the file trading.
False. Movies are traded on P2P because people like getting shit for free. There's really no philosophy, unless it's mentioned and people hide behind one "Uh yeah, cause I can't buy it. Right." It's only a question of whether it's J-Random-Warezd00d or the studio releasing it unprotected first. The feeding frenzy that is p2p trading would be just as vigorous.
A filibuster proof Senate majority would be nice.
Yes because then they could cram through every last bit of legislation they like and say "oh fuck you" to anyone they don't. Such a one-sided government would be wonderful, wouldn't it?
Then we can and we can really get something done.
Yes, they can piss on the constitution and no one can interfere. NO ONE.
Your entire argument is completely ridiculous.
The simple fact is that musicians, authors, and movie producers create something that is physically intangiable. Both a mechanic and a hair stylist charge for their labor. And physics consists of the natural world, which exists beyond them.
What's you're essentially saying is that there is no value in a work itself, only the labor. And sure, you can go ahead and do this. It's called a work for hire.
This is generally how movies and music are made. The only difference is the cost is abstracted from the musicians and producers by companies who foot the bill.
I see all the time people bitching on Slashdot that they'd NEVER go see a movie, buy a music CD, or buy a TV show on DVD if not for being able to download it first. Then there are the freeloaders who never buy at all. Since those two combined consist of the majority of P2P filesharers, the method you describe would pretty much result in a near total stop in the number of works being produced.
I'd like to see if the existing fanbase for a show like Firefly could foot the per-episode production cost. Somehow I doubt it, without paying many times what they do now.
The PS3 will be high-def out of the box. Sony won't stand to release anything less, especially when Microsoft is doing HD. It's already rated for 1080p, which I don't doubt Sony can accomplish.
The XBOX360 is using a dated format that game manufacturers have maxed. I'm sure space even on DVD-9s will become tight as higher res textures and models are packed into games. Speculation states that the DRM system on blu-ray could be used to brick your system (remember, it's the DRM system, not the media), but we've seen no evidence of this yet. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't hesitate to brick your xbox360 if they found out you had installed a mod (after all, that's why it's a TPM machine from the ground up, designed to protect IT from YOU.)
And Microsoft's game discs are just as proprietary as any other. I don't see how the ps3 using funky-ray media would be any different, considering they're meant for use with their respective consoles only.
Indeed, who needs seven controllers. Who knows, maybe someone will come up with an idea for it.
1) I don't necessarily want to have to pay to play online. With the xbox360 you have no choice, developers MUST go through xbox live. Sony leaves this choice open to developers. Oh it's only $50 a year, so what. It's $50 I don't want to be required to pay.
2) The xbox360 is not available now. Microsoft deliberately made it unavailable to all but the most nutty willing to spend $400 to $800 on it. And now it's sold out and won't be available again until next year or so.
3) Bungie is good, although Halo left me unimpressed. Rare not so, with 2 games since MS purchased them. And FF is only stated to be FFXI, which has been out on PC and PS2 since its inception. And EA will sign on to every console maker, they'd be extremely stupid not to.
Why not xbox360?
Because there's not a damn game available for it that I want. That and it's unavailable and costs $400. And there's no guarantee that it actually is any better than the PS3, considering the PS3 isn't even out yet. And that I won't be getting for a long time either, until the price drops to $200 or so.