In my experience, most computer games that aren't built on some kind of card or board game and such require an intense level of dedication to build skill. That's much of their appeal to the obsessive Slashdot crowd. Unfortunately, they often don't have any mechanism for leveling the skill playing field. Some, like the MMO's that other posters recommend, may be even worse because they demand time instead of skill.
I think you might want to reconsider your premise: your girlfriend, if she is unwilling to immerse herself in the games, might just not be that interested in video games. You may also ask yourself whether your girlfriend really wants to play, or if she is just acquiescing to your hobbies. If the latter is the case, you might find that her ardor wears off and the games become a burden on your relationship. Finding activities that are genuinely, mutually enjoyable would be a better bet if this is the case. Note that I'm not saying it is: you're the one in the relationship and you must trust your own judgment.
As another alternative, you could try something like Go, a board game with a natural way of leveling the skill barrier by giving one side a handicap. Otherwise, I you could be on a quest for something that doesn't exist.
... I can only say, good for you, UK. Don't compromise and don't surrender. You should have full access to the weapons you purchase, including the source code, so you can use them as you see fit.
They have a music store, a hardware business, and a record label.
Actually, this last one makes Sony less likely compete. If you were another record label, how willing would you be to help a direct competitor become entrenched in product creation and distribution to the end consumer? Sony's music store faces problems cauesd by its record arm, just like Sony's portable music devices suffer from its content divisions (see the Minidisc fiasco as well as the more recent ATRAC software debacle). If anything, Sony should focus on making the best technical products instead of worrying about what their tech might do to their content business.
Anyway, I agree with the bulk of your post and do see Sony as a logical competitor for Apple, but I can't see how they disregard the content albatross that holds them back.
The housing bubble was created by a complete lack of confidence in the stock market.
You should be forced to take a real economics class before repeating garbage like this. The housing bubble -- if there is a bubble -- is being created by historically low interest rates as a result of foreign central banks buying US debt, an increasing population and an artifically limited housing supply. This last issue was addressed in long NYTimes article last Sunday about an economist named Edward Glaeser.
Perhaps more importantly, the percentage of people who need a desktop's power has diminished greaetly over the last five years. For most purposes -- web browsers, office tools, simple to medium scale development -- the processor's speed and the interconnects simply don't matter much. At the same time, operating systems are now pretty stable. For basic tasks, the amount of additional benefit one gets from a desktop over a laptop is declining. Around the time the higher clocked Pentium III's hit, computers became good enough for most things. I haven't seen much done with the additional power computers can offer most users who aren't playing intense, modern games or running servers or editing video.
I use a PowerBook that's a few years old as my daily machine; despite the hoopla, I won't upgrade to the new OMGWTFBBQ fast MBP anytime soon. For what I do, I just don't need to.
You -- the guy who does video editing -- and you -- the guy who compiles OO.org several times a day -- and you -- the guy who does scientific computing and 3d modeling -- the above doesn't apply. I know you need the fastest machine available. I know you're pushing the cutting edge. The rest of us, including most/. readers, aren't, and we don't really need the speed of desktops, though we don't complain.
In other words, Sony's biggest problem is itself, and particularly its unwillingness to let its electronics division override its entertainment division. There's no reason for Apple to be the portable music leader -- Sony could have done it with the minidisc and then could at least be in the game with its hard drive walkman. In both cases, problems with file formats, DRM, ease of use and user interface hobbled their attempts. The first two can be traced directly back to their content division.
Sony's hardware is nice. Everything encumbering it isn't.
I already had a relative send me a link to this article. I'll copy my e-mail response:
The guy who wrote this article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Worms" spread without any user interaction -- they can infect millions of machines on the internet in hours. Those are the kind of vulnerabilities that got Microsoft in trouble in 2003. Viruses require user interaction to work. All the "vulnerabilities" described in the article require the user to install a program and it's trivially easy to be destructive once you have the user's trust.
In addition, virtually all the vulnerabilities described by the article are local ones -- meaning a malicious person needs access to the machine. Truly dangerous vulnerabilities offer remote access, which means any random hacker on the Internet can control the machine from afar. AFAIK, none have been discovered in most Linux distributions or OS X. If OS X did ship with remote vulnerabilities, THAT would be huge news.
The only relevant part of the article comes at the very end:
Many viruses and worms, for instance, don't exploit security holes in operating systems. Instead, they use what are called "social engineering" techniques to trick users into doing things that they shouldn't do, like unwittingly installing programs. The Anna Kournikova worm from 2001, for example, infamously tricked Windows users into installing it by masquerading as photos of the leggy Russian tennis star attached to e-mails.
Rather than weaknesses in operating systems, such approaches exploit "a bug in peoples' brains, which is much harder to patch," Mr. Cluley says.
That should have been the lead. The rest of the article is idiotic.
If you believe that a "constitutionally-bound Republican government" will end suffering and poverty, I recommend you descend from your ivory tower and walk among the ghettos and homeless shelters of your local city sometime. That you visit some truly poor and struggling families. The belief that education and democracy will end the world's problems is stereotypically naive American thinking.
A stable monarchy would be a better choice. You will still end up with different social strata (ruling class, middle class, poor class---you are fooling yourself if you believe these do not exist in a republic), but the poorest will be in general better off. (Note: a monarchy does not imply a dictatorship.)
No offense, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You knock down a variety of strawmen to make a point that's wrong anyway.
Monarchies are inherently dictatorships because everyone must follow the rule of a single person. A monarchy does not just imply a dictatorship -- it requires one. The problem with them is that, while their may be a benevelent dictator or monarch for a generation or two, inevitably someone seizes or inherits power and then wields it for his own benefit and to the detriment of his citizens. Historically, free government and free speech lead to material wealth and improved living standards. There is no way to "end suffering and poverty" but there are ways to alleviate it for the vast majority of the population.
Your examples are terrible. Although homeless shelters do exist and not all people are equal in America (or other western countries), the poor of this country are considerably better off than even the rich of many third-world countries. Most American poor have TVs and cars; the poor of many other countries wonder where their next meal will come from.
Education and democracy will not end all the world's problems, but they will improve the overall well-being of the people. Of course, you elitist view has been argued throughout history. Those who impose it only cause greater suffering to their people. No one argues that different social classes develop in republics, but that doesn't mean that a republic isn't a superior form of government.
Not to flame you or anything, but that sentence is actually fine because the comma offsets the clause that follows. "Else" functions like "and" or "or" in that the GP can use a comma or not. "I'm not talking to you" is an independent clause that is joined with a word similar to "and.";-)
Apple has turned its reputation around among techies, which is important because the technically-inclined 1) often help their friends make purchasing decisions and 2) write the important software that sells systems. These things have helped sell more Macs -- IIRC, Apple sold more machines in 2005 than in any other year in the company's history. Their quarterly numbers have been consistently improving since 2002. Their marketshare has been trending upwards -- marginally, true, up upwards nonetheless.
Furthermore, one can't separate Apple's present success from the iPod. The iPod helps drive Mac sales and it's part of Apple's strategy. That's like saying "take away Microsoft Office and Microsoft isn't doing nearly as well." That would be rediculous.
Early slow/crashy versions of OSX were herlded (sic)
Early versions of OS X were heralded because they showed such extraordinary potential. At last, a company showed an operating system simple enough for novices while retaining its complexity for masters. A company wedded the *nix experience with a slick GUI. The same machine could easily run MS Office, Adobe programs and a myriad of open source code. Decent developer tools came free in every box. Even if the beta and 10.0 releases of OS X were slow and crashed frequently, a lot of people looked at them and saw the future. That vision was even more radical because Macs in the 90's were so horrendous by comparison.
Prior to OS X, Apple did not have a good reputation. People legitimately predicted their death. If they were mentioned on tech sites at all, it was with appropriate derision. Although some Mac users display the kind of religious zealotry you describe, your argument is still a straw man. There is no "mystique" for most of us. In the Win95 era, Apple had a crappy operating system and so did Microsoft, so a lot of new computer buyers bought Windows systems. More people still do. But Apple now offers a compelling line up. That's why they get respect on Slashdot. The company is far from saintly, as their DMCA threats show, but they are better than Microsoft and easier to use, particularly for laptops, than Linux. OS X turned the company around. It's a good operating system. That's why people use it. That's why people saw the early versions and said "wow."
It's not coincidence that I type this from a PowerBook that originally ran 10.3.
Your argument is built on a faulty premise, because I doubt Apple will let the process become easy. I already wrote a comment about how this will probably be a net benefit to Apple.
"Normal" buyers of Wal*Mart PCs won't have the technical acumen to install cracked versions of OS X and they probably won't have the inclination to do so anyway. Even if they did try, they would probably be less inclined to blame Apple because they won't have any expectation that OS X will run on generic PCs anyway.
Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?
I would guess that this is a blessing. Casual users won't bother with hacked versions of OS X and the sales loss from it will probably be minimal as long as these versions remain inconvenient. Serious hacker types -- the kinds most likely to write useful software for a system, I would guess -- will, and some of those who run OS X will probably write and/or port useful software to it, thus benefitting all the other users. Apple won't have to support the myriad of hardware configurations that people will try to run.
As long as cracked versions aren't widespread, this sounds like a win for Apple.
Their prices have been dropping slowly over time in absolute terms and faster in relative terms (i.e. adjusted for inflation). If you don't believe me, look at Apple History's webpage. For example, when the first white iBook shipped, the base model was $1499. Now it's $999. The first G4 PowerMacs started at $2499 and topped out at $3499. There are exceptions, but the overall point remains accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if government officials were this idiotic, there'd be no hope.
As Linux gains institutional support, litigation is only going to become harder for Microsoft, not easier.
That should be Slashdot's new motto.
I think you might want to reconsider your premise: your girlfriend, if she is unwilling to immerse herself in the games, might just not be that interested in video games. You may also ask yourself whether your girlfriend really wants to play, or if she is just acquiescing to your hobbies. If the latter is the case, you might find that her ardor wears off and the games become a burden on your relationship. Finding activities that are genuinely, mutually enjoyable would be a better bet if this is the case. Note that I'm not saying it is: you're the one in the relationship and you must trust your own judgment.
As another alternative, you could try something like Go, a board game with a natural way of leveling the skill barrier by giving one side a handicap. Otherwise, I you could be on a quest for something that doesn't exist.
... I can only say, good for you, UK. Don't compromise and don't surrender. You should have full access to the weapons you purchase, including the source code, so you can use them as you see fit.
Fixed that for you.
There is no step 2.
I think a far more interesting proposition would be to pit ~250lbs of Steve Ballmer with a chair against ~160lbs of Steve Jobs.
Actually, this last one makes Sony less likely compete. If you were another record label, how willing would you be to help a direct competitor become entrenched in product creation and distribution to the end consumer? Sony's music store faces problems cauesd by its record arm, just like Sony's portable music devices suffer from its content divisions (see the Minidisc fiasco as well as the more recent ATRAC software debacle). If anything, Sony should focus on making the best technical products instead of worrying about what their tech might do to their content business.
Anyway, I agree with the bulk of your post and do see Sony as a logical competitor for Apple, but I can't see how they disregard the content albatross that holds them back.
You should be forced to take a real economics class before repeating garbage like this. The housing bubble -- if there is a bubble -- is being created by historically low interest rates as a result of foreign central banks buying US debt, an increasing population and an artifically limited housing supply. This last issue was addressed in long NYTimes article last Sunday about an economist named Edward Glaeser.
I use a PowerBook that's a few years old as my daily machine; despite the hoopla, I won't upgrade to the new OMGWTFBBQ fast MBP anytime soon. For what I do, I just don't need to.
You -- the guy who does video editing -- and you -- the guy who compiles OO.org several times a day -- and you -- the guy who does scientific computing and 3d modeling -- the above doesn't apply. I know you need the fastest machine available. I know you're pushing the cutting edge. The rest of us, including most /. readers, aren't, and we don't really need the speed of desktops, though we don't complain.
Yep. I wrote a reply to another poster essentially reinforcing that point.
Sony's hardware is nice. Everything encumbering it isn't.
Samberg: I prefer Map quest
Parnell: That's a good one too
Samberg: Google maps is the best
Parnell: True dat
Together: DOUBLE TRUE!
The guy who wrote this article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Worms" spread without any user interaction -- they can infect millions of machines on the internet in hours. Those are the kind of vulnerabilities that got Microsoft in trouble in 2003. Viruses require user interaction to work. All the "vulnerabilities" described in the article require the user to install a program and it's trivially easy to be destructive once you have the user's trust.
In addition, virtually all the vulnerabilities described by the article are local ones -- meaning a malicious person needs access to the machine. Truly dangerous vulnerabilities offer remote access, which means any random hacker on the Internet can control the machine from afar. AFAIK, none have been discovered in most Linux distributions or OS X. If OS X did ship with remote vulnerabilities, THAT would be huge news.
The only relevant part of the article comes at the very end:
Many viruses and worms, for instance, don't exploit security holes in operating systems. Instead, they use what are called "social engineering" techniques to trick users into doing things that they shouldn't do, like unwittingly installing programs. The Anna Kournikova worm from 2001, for example, infamously tricked Windows users into installing it by masquerading as photos of the leggy Russian tennis star attached to e-mails.
Rather than weaknesses in operating systems, such approaches exploit "a bug in peoples' brains, which is much harder to patch," Mr. Cluley says.
That should have been the lead. The rest of the article is idiotic.
A stable monarchy would be a better choice. You will still end up with different social strata (ruling class, middle class, poor class---you are fooling yourself if you believe these do not exist in a republic), but the poorest will be in general better off. (Note: a monarchy does not imply a dictatorship.)
No offense, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You knock down a variety of strawmen to make a point that's wrong anyway.
Monarchies are inherently dictatorships because everyone must follow the rule of a single person. A monarchy does not just imply a dictatorship -- it requires one. The problem with them is that, while their may be a benevelent dictator or monarch for a generation or two, inevitably someone seizes or inherits power and then wields it for his own benefit and to the detriment of his citizens. Historically, free government and free speech lead to material wealth and improved living standards. There is no way to "end suffering and poverty" but there are ways to alleviate it for the vast majority of the population.
Your examples are terrible. Although homeless shelters do exist and not all people are equal in America (or other western countries), the poor of this country are considerably better off than even the rich of many third-world countries. Most American poor have TVs and cars; the poor of many other countries wonder where their next meal will come from.
Education and democracy will not end all the world's problems, but they will improve the overall well-being of the people. Of course, you elitist view has been argued throughout history. Those who impose it only cause greater suffering to their people. No one argues that different social classes develop in republics, but that doesn't mean that a republic isn't a superior form of government.
This would be possible by locating servers outside of China -- and thus out of the reach of the Chinese authorities.
Not to flame you or anything, but that sentence is actually fine because the comma offsets the clause that follows. "Else" functions like "and" or "or" in that the GP can use a comma or not. "I'm not talking to you" is an independent clause that is joined with a word similar to "and." ;-)
Furthermore, one can't separate Apple's present success from the iPod. The iPod helps drive Mac sales and it's part of Apple's strategy. That's like saying "take away Microsoft Office and Microsoft isn't doing nearly as well." That would be rediculous.
Early versions of OS X were heralded because they showed such extraordinary potential. At last, a company showed an operating system simple enough for novices while retaining its complexity for masters. A company wedded the *nix experience with a slick GUI. The same machine could easily run MS Office, Adobe programs and a myriad of open source code. Decent developer tools came free in every box. Even if the beta and 10.0 releases of OS X were slow and crashed frequently, a lot of people looked at them and saw the future. That vision was even more radical because Macs in the 90's were so horrendous by comparison.
Prior to OS X, Apple did not have a good reputation. People legitimately predicted their death. If they were mentioned on tech sites at all, it was with appropriate derision. Although some Mac users display the kind of religious zealotry you describe, your argument is still a straw man. There is no "mystique" for most of us. In the Win95 era, Apple had a crappy operating system and so did Microsoft, so a lot of new computer buyers bought Windows systems. More people still do. But Apple now offers a compelling line up. That's why they get respect on Slashdot. The company is far from saintly, as their DMCA threats show, but they are better than Microsoft and easier to use, particularly for laptops, than Linux. OS X turned the company around. It's a good operating system. That's why people use it. That's why people saw the early versions and said "wow."
It's not coincidence that I type this from a PowerBook that originally ran 10.3.
The vendor probably deplored his methods, unless the vendor was begging (or imploring) him to explore, which seems unlikely in the case of Apple.
I'd write a reasoned response disagreeing, but I just don't care.
"Normal" buyers of Wal*Mart PCs won't have the technical acumen to install cracked versions of OS X and they probably won't have the inclination to do so anyway. Even if they did try, they would probably be less inclined to blame Apple because they won't have any expectation that OS X will run on generic PCs anyway.
I would guess that this is a blessing. Casual users won't bother with hacked versions of OS X and the sales loss from it will probably be minimal as long as these versions remain inconvenient. Serious hacker types -- the kinds most likely to write useful software for a system, I would guess -- will, and some of those who run OS X will probably write and/or port useful software to it, thus benefitting all the other users. Apple won't have to support the myriad of hardware configurations that people will try to run.
As long as cracked versions aren't widespread, this sounds like a win for Apple.
Their prices have been dropping slowly over time in absolute terms and faster in relative terms (i.e. adjusted for inflation). If you don't believe me, look at Apple History's webpage. For example, when the first white iBook shipped, the base model was $1499. Now it's $999. The first G4 PowerMacs started at $2499 and topped out at $3499. There are exceptions, but the overall point remains accurate.