I understand that RIM works close with the government to ensure proper handling of potentially highly sensitive information. My problem is the government saying you need to shut down this service ofr everyone, it is illegal, uh, except for us, because we really need it. That smacks of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
That article doesn't mention any congressmen. That's more who I want to hear from, not from a nameless Justice Department source. Plus, the article clearly states:
"The Justice Department, filing on behalf of various government agencies, requested a stay of 90 days to put together an electronic database of government users whose service should not be cut off in the event Research In Motion loses its final legal battles and does not reach a settlement."
This isn't the solution I think is proper, but it is one I would expect from the government. A government solution that looks after the needs of goverment, and pretty much says fuck all to everyone else. God I hate the government...
Thats the point. Thare's talk that all the service will be turned off EXCEPT service for government. This won't highlight the problem, because, well, congress will still have service. They won't care about everyone else. I mean, it IS congress for christ's sake.
Most people here seem to agree that this whole Blackberry fiasco is rediculous. From the article:
"NTP, inc. a small patent holding firm of McLean, VA., that maintains the technology behind the popular blackberry infringes on their patents"
This is a textbook case of the abuse occuring in our patent system. NTP doesn't make stuff. They're a patent holding firm. Did RIM steal resources and technology from NTP? NO. Was the idea of a wireless e-mail device a non-obvious one? NONo. Did NTP really create any kind of technology? No. Did RIM come up with the idea independently of NTP, and actually execute on it, actually spending the money to engineer an actual device? Yes. If NTP wants to bitch, I think they should at LEAST have a fucking PRODUCT on the market. Instead, they sit on a non-invention and decide to sue when someone else thinks of it as well, because they think they can just prfit from everyone else's hard work. This is complete bullshit.
What REALLY gets me, is that congress practically runs on Blackberry. Just this past Thanksgiving I happened to be sitting on an airplane right next to my state senator Mitch McConnel. He's blackberrying away like the whole time from Louisville to Philadelphia. (I couldn't help but think of that American Dad episode where they steal Cheney's). But it is pretty well known that almost all of these senators and representatives are using blackberries for their wireless communications. So why aren't they speaking up about this. When a product they they use and rely on daily is threatened out of existance in the US, because of the laws that THEY have enabled, I mean, shouldn't this send some kind of wake-up call that patent law is serious FUCKED UP? I have actually read (please correct if wrong or confirm if really true) that blackberry service would shut down for everyone in the US except except for high ranking government officials, because they rely on the devices so much. Isn't this a huge double standard? Can they really say that our laws outlaw this technology for everyone except for them, because while it infringes patents, it is just too important for us political elite to not have. Obviously this should show that patent law in its current form is NOT contributing or encouraging the progression of science and useful arts.
"ATTENTION CITIZENS. IF YOU HAVE TRAVELED TO THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES YOU MAY BE AT RISK FOR CARRYING THIS DISEASE. PLEASE SEE YOUR NEAREST HOSPITAL IMMEDIATLY IF YOU ARE AT RISK"
Why isn't such a message like that simply broadcast over the radio, television, and internet news? The only people who probably wouldn't get the message, even though there would be ample opportunity to receive it, would be poor people, as they are less likely to pay attention and react to the news. Poor people aren't traveling overseas anyway. So they wouldn't be on the proposed CDC list anyway. I don't see why just some general broadcast is not enough. No, this is about control. This is about letting the CDC and other organizations and governments know exactly where you are so they can round you up and herd you into some kind of quarintine in the event of some kind of pandemic.
Personally, I think people are missing a lot of aspects about this. I really think the FCC's primary goal here is a 'protect the children' sort of thing. They've already said they're trying to regulate the amount of "adult content" on cable and satelite television. While I think that a la Carte TV channel pricing is a good thing, I think the FCC reasoning is slightly different than some of the reasoning I see here. I think this is more the FCC trying to cater to such groups as the Parents Television Council, and not your average consumer. This is about giving lazy parents who don't want to figure out how to use their v-chip another way to block programming. This way, parents who just don't want this 'filth' coming into their homes, but still want cable television can do it. They can say we only want the Family Channel, Lifetime, Hallmark TV, and other good wholesome TV. Which is fine. There is nothing really wroing with that so to speak. I just think that THIS is the real reason the FCC is supporting a la Carte programming. It's not necessarily about giving consumer choice, that is just what happens to be the outcome if this particular bending over to busybody groups like the PTC.
On another note, as much as I think a la Carte pricing for TV channels is a pretty good thing, I don't really see it having that much of an impact in the long term. In the next 20 years, probably much much sooner if the big media companies quit kicking and screaming trying to fight it, the landscape of what we traditionally call 'television' is going to be incredibly different. Television is going internet, and in a big way. Think of all the bit-torrent tv show downloads. Think of all the people who don't really watch tv, but rent the seasons of good shows on DVD. People are sick of the traditional televsion program/commercial model. A la Carte channels distributed by cable operators? There isn't going to BE any TV channels anymore. It's going to be A la Carte shows bought off the internet. Apple's deal with ABC to sell shows on a per episode basis is really a significant step. A search aggrigate, like Google, is going to be keeping track of what kind of shows you like, and recommending what kind of shows you might be interested in. There will be no need for traditional television channels. Everything is going to be personalized. I'm telling everyone, right here, we are witnessing the end of the traditional television and media era. Just look at google video.
Right now we're just testing Google Video, so only a small amount of programming from a limited number of channels is included in your search results. But we're indexing new content every day and we'll be adding channels in the near future, so you should see more and more results from your searches in the coming months.
See, they're already DOING it. It's going to expand. It is going to really start with traditional television shows. Google will start telling people, "hey, you like ABC's Desperate Housewives, why dont you check out Irrational Ladies on NBC?" Eventually though, they're going to start mixing all those quirky internet videos in with their television show recommendations. Soon, all those internet videos, while generally have 0 production value, but tons of entertainment value (c'mon, how many times did you watch the Star Wars kid? Have you ever laughed so hard at something on television?), are going to overtake what was tradtionally a domain completley owned by corporate broadcasters and cable companies. We're going to see the end of bullshit lowest comon denominator programming like "Everybody Loves Raymod" and "Friends." Programming is going to be much more targeted at specific audiences. In this new marketspace, independent media, writers and actors, animators, etc are going to be much more on an equal footing with the traditional big players. I mean, look at South Park. That show pretty much came out of a Christmas greeting that two guys made that sort of spread on the internet. South Park could have just as easily ended up
Actually, I wonder if some channels will actually become FREE in the hopes of selling ads. (I guess that didn't work in newspapers and magazines, but they are cheap.)
Most magazines probably would be free to consumers if they could. Only small fraction of most magazine income comes from the money subscribers pay. A vast majority comes from selling advertisemen space. A free magazine seems like it would make sense. More readers would have the magazine, right? More eyes for the advertisements, right? Well, actually, wrong. It all comes down to the value of the product. When you pay for something, you tend to associate a greater value to it. You're hard earned cash bought it. You appreciate it more. When you get something for free, you tend to not care so much. What magazine are you more likely to read? The one you got free in the mail, or the one that came because you subscribed and paid money for it? Advertisers know that when you pay for a magazine or a newspaper, you're more likely to actually read the damn thing and actually more likely to be interested in their advertisement and what they're selling.
Thats really a really weird thing for him to say. Tim Burton made two great Batman movies. Batman in 89, and Batman Returns in 92. Those were really the only two good superhero movies that came out of that era. After that, that was pretty much it. The genre wasn't really re-energized. I can't really even think of any other superhero movies from the 90's. The only ones I can think of are the next two Batman movies, directed by Joel Schumacher, were utter crap. It wasn't really until X-Men came out in 2000, a full eight years later from the last good superhero movie, that something came out that proved a superhero movie could be something other than a complete cheesefest. It's huge success, coupled with Spider-man's in 2002, is what is really responsible for this slew of new superhero movies. But we're seeing the same pattern again. A few good movies, and then a slew of crap. League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Fantastic Four, etc. We're also seeing a lot more superhero movies now because Hollywood is out of ideas. Nothing original really seems to be getting made now, and superhero movies fit nicely in with the Hollywood strategy of playing it safe. X-Men and Spider-man showed that superhero movies once again could be profitable. So they start producing tons. They already have a built in fan base. It's safe and easy to just start churning em out. Just pick a comic book hero and make a movie out of him. No thought required. It's like Awesome-O is behind this, not Tim Burton. I generally like his movies, but he didn't re-energize a thing.
There was a German Star Trek parody that came out last year called (T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1. I haven't seen it, but I saw ads on television for it when I was in Germany last year, and it looked pretty goofy. Raumschiff is the German word for spaceship, but Traumschiff would be like "dreamship". So it's like a dual meaning. Periode is Period. 1 is 1. Has anyone seen this movie? Is it worth watching? My German is only so-so, but my Trek is pretty good:) Will I be able to understand enough of this movie without a universal translator? Cause I'd really like to see it.
First off, I'm a little unsure of axactly what constitutes a violation of the spyware law. Is it just the actual infection of a machine? What about other laws that were likely broken? What about the copy of the rootkit contained on the CD? It seems like it should be a violation of SOMETHING for each copy of the cd that Sony knowingly produced with this rootkit on it. Each production of a cd is meant with sale in mind, and each sale is pretty much an attempt to root an innocent persons machine. Does this not violate some anti hacking statute or something? And what about the copywrited code that was contained in the rootkit. Surely, Sony, or that hack of a company that created the DRM software, should be held liable for that. If Sony can sue people for obscene amounts for each 'illegal' copy of music on their hardrive, shouldn't each illegal copy of this GPL'd code be considered a violation of copyright?
So I'm really happy that Texas is started to push legal action against Sony, but I'm also would like everyone to slow down a bit, and be cautious. I just don't want all the eggs to be in one basket. Sony needs to get called on ALL violations of law. I would hate to see action pushed forward too soon, before every violation is accounted for.
This is the obvious Microsoft response to the threat of open source office suites and open document formats. We've already seen stories concerning Microsoft losing business because of closed document formats. The closed formats have been enough of a concern where municipalities and other organizations have said "We're not going to use Office anymore." If this trend were to continue, it would pose a significant threat to Microsoft's revenue, as a large portion comes from selling Office products. This is essentially what Microsoft needs to do in order to deny people a solid justification from adopting other solutions. I still can't see how they justify the price, but that's another issue all together.
Actually, I have a copy of gauntlet that was licensed. It had the standard gray cart, with the seal of quality and everything. I know just know that there was an unauthorized version witht he black cart, etc. I guess there was some kind of settlement or something.
He's not making a recommendation that people use outlook at home. He's saying "you must use outlook." And I know that's not true, as I have my mother set up with Thunderbird and it works fine. What he could say is "I recommend and can only give support to outlook." That would be another story all together. That would make his job just as easy. In this case, he either he doesn't know you can use another e-mail client (he is an mcse moron), or he blatently lied when he said you had to use outlook (He's a liar). But whatever, I guess that makes him perfectly qualified for a rank job in the public school system.
My whole point however, which we've drifted from, is that this reliance, or just perceived reliance on Microsoft products is institutionalized. People hear this kind of stuff every single day, much of it false, from people who are supposed to know what they are talking about. This everyday experience drives the notion that Microsoft is a necessity.
Oh, of course I have Thunderbird set up for her. But the thing is, I'm not the IT guy for everyone else in the school district. I'm not going to go around door to door installing another e-mail client on everyone's computer. My point is that I shouldn't have to go correct this moron's incorrect assertion. It's simply wrong for people in the positions of a degree of trust regarding computers, like your IT guy at work, and especially one in our educational system, to be feeding this kind of misinformation to people. It's the behavior of people like this IT guy, telling everyone you must use Outlook at home to get your e-mail, that further propagates the myth that you can't get away from Microsoft. I'll bet if our public institutions started using free software, like OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, while it may not spark a migration away from MS, at least it would start to get people comfortable with using other products.
My mother works for the local school district, and in order to check her e-mail from home, she is told "you must use outlook."
I won't even mention how stupid it is for them to be using outlook considering all the security problems. Err, wait. I guess I just did.
I do a quite a bit of programming as a graduate computer engineering student, generally relating to the web, and preferably in Java. For smaller projects I prefer vim and some syntax highlighting, and for larger projects, I like to use eclipse. But being a student, I'm often at the whim of certain teacher preferences. For instance, I'm taking an introductory computer graphics class in which we're learning managed Direct3D. Obviously this requires windows. Anyway, my point being that I'm fairly versed with with alternate programming environments. So, I'm a bit curious as to why we're singling out Visual Studio. What about Eclipse? Does it not 'rot the brain' as well? What makes Visual Studio worse than any other IDE? Are we all supposed to go back to using just text editors, or are we just bashing Microsoft products here?
It seems like some people are focusing too much wysiwyg gui editor. That's stupid. I don't care what anyone says. I think the Window's forms editor is a godsend. I wish that the eclipse visual editor was anywhere NEAR close the ease and usefulness of the windows forms editor. I'm an engineer. I like to design slick systems that are componantized, modular, extendable, etc. I like the challenge of design, and I like the challenge of implenting those projects. What I do not like is spending hours trying to create a gui interface for the system. GUI programming is tedious, frustrating, and lets face it, It's BORING. Do I even need to say 'GridBagLayout?'
Lets face it. The only real need for a super slick professional looking GUI is if your making a commercial, retail application. If that is your goal, you'll hire someone that specializes in creating and designing user interfaces. Otherwise, probably 95% of the time, there is no point waisting your time hand coding a gui. These tools are there to let you explore your creativity, and realize the beauty of your design without getting bogged down by mundane details, like button placement on a GUI. You'd be a fool NOT to use them.
Errr, I'm confused. If there was a lock-out chip, why do I recall playing Tengen games on the NES that weren't liscensed by Nintendo. I belive there were several Tengen games. Also I remeber the HARDEST GAME EVER: The Adventures of Dizzy. It was released unauthorized by Codemasters. I remeber there was a little switch in the back of the cart, and if the game didn't work in one position, you flicked it in the other.
Here I found a link that gives a bit of a run down between all the different unauthorized carts that were manufactured for the NES. Have a look.
Re:Top 15 games as posted by 1up:
on
20 Years of NES
·
· Score: 1
Wow, I rarely see a "Top N Things" list that I agree with, but I'd say this is pretty spot on. There are so many NES classics though, it's hard to fit them all in a top 15 list. I'd say these a few more A+ titles that should be considered as top NES games.
Metal Gear - This was the premier 'stealth' based game. And who can forget "the truck have started to move"?
Castlevania. (I'd say 2 and 3 of the series were equally awesome, but in different ways. 2 with the RPG
elements and open map, and 3 with the multiple paths and characters.)
Earthbound - I belive the original Earthbound can be found English translated as Earthbound 0 in ROM form
Tecmo (Super) Bowl - Greatest football games EVAR!
Kid Icarus - I can't belive there hasn't been an update to this classic
Metroid - I really thought this would have been on 1up's top 15.
Kirby's Adventures - I really think this game was ahead of it's time. Current generation platformers still lack the depth of this of this title. Almost every enemy can be eaten, giving Kirby a different skill. Genius game design.
Dr. Mario, Tetris, RC Pro Am, Ninja Gaiden, Battletoads, TMNT, the list goes on and on...
Hrm..Why is it I have such a hard time thinking of such a great list for the current generation of systems? Is Nintendo right when it paints a bleak picture about the current state of the games industry?
How exactly is the relationship between Apple and the large record companies defined? Surly there is some kind of contract in which Apple pays X% of of an iTunes sale to the song's owning record label. If they record labels back out, won't it result in some sort of contractual breach? (Anyone who knows more, please reply)
I think the record companies (unsurprisingly) underestimated the the kind of sales that the iTMS would do. Now perhaps they're finally waking up to the reality of the situtation, that this is how people WANT to purchase and enjoy their music. I mean, how long ago was the old Napster? More than 5 years. FIVE YEARS. After all the bitching and moaning, the labels STILL don't have their own digitial distribution mechanisms. It just shows that the labels were and are still sooooo dimwitted and clueless. And now, "oh wait look, Apple is making money on this online store that we should have made ourselves 5 years ago to react to market demand. Apple should give us more money. Wahhhhh!" Well I say FUCK YOU record labels. You did this to yourself. You underestimated the market, your customers, the technology, and EVERY OTHER ASPECT of running your businesses. You signed deals with Apple letting them sell your music for 99 cents a track. It must have been a good deal then, right? Why else would you have signed to such a deal? If you're unhappy with the terms now, thats your own fault.
How is this insightful at all. It's pure America bashing. I understand that the rest of the world has some issues with this country, but this post has no insight whatsoever.
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world.
I didn't know that was the goal of our government. I thought it was to look out for American interests. Not be "warm and fuzzy." Maybe we should have been warm and fuzzy with Hitler. (sorry for the Godwin)
Someone in the Government should really take a step back and ask themselves why this would actually matter at all. The UN is the ideal place to run the internet rules at the moment, its got the largest reach and global membership and a stated goal of being independent.
You're crazy. You think somehow it wouldn't actually matter if the US relinquished control of pretty much the most valuable information and communication infrastructure in the world? That we should just hand it over? I can see where perhaps your opinion comes from, especially if you aren't an American, but to say that somehow it just wouldn't matter and not be detrimental to US interests, which is the primary role of the US government in an international context, is just silly.
Cooperating with other countries is fine. We're cooperating with other countries already. Thats why people in other countries are..ON THE INTERNET. Cooperation shouldn't mean we have to relinquish control to an undemocratic body, filled with unelected members, such as the United Nations.
A matter of national policy that cannot be negotiated? I don't seem to recall the 132nd ammendment stating that internet domain ownership is the right of every american citizen.
WTF are you talking about. 132nd amendment? Right to internet domain ownership? What? I mean the internet was created essentially by the US government. I don't see why you think it is somehow unreasonable that the US won't negotiate handing over control to another entity.
Because co-operation is bad eh? No. We are already cooperating as I mentioned earlier. But giving other countries that kind of control is simply not good US policy. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
Damn those pesky Europeans for wanting oversight on a random organisation like ICANN which has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making.
Right. Because the UN has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making. Get a freakin clue.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that RIM works close with the government to ensure proper handling of potentially highly sensitive information. My problem is the government saying you need to shut down this service ofr everyone, it is illegal, uh, except for us, because we really need it. That smacks of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
That article doesn't mention any congressmen. That's more who I want to hear from, not from a nameless Justice Department source. Plus, the article clearly states:
"The Justice Department, filing on behalf of various government agencies, requested a stay of 90 days to put together an electronic database of government users whose service should not be cut off in the event Research In Motion loses its final legal battles and does not reach a settlement."
This isn't the solution I think is proper, but it is one I would expect from the government. A government solution that looks after the needs of goverment, and pretty much says fuck all to everyone else. God I hate the government...
Thats the point. Thare's talk that all the service will be turned off EXCEPT service for government. This won't highlight the problem, because, well, congress will still have service. They won't care about everyone else. I mean, it IS congress for christ's sake.
Most people here seem to agree that this whole Blackberry fiasco is rediculous. From the article:
"NTP, inc. a small patent holding firm of McLean, VA., that maintains the technology behind the popular blackberry infringes on their patents" This is a textbook case of the abuse occuring in our patent system. NTP doesn't make stuff. They're a patent holding firm. Did RIM steal resources and technology from NTP? NO. Was the idea of a wireless e-mail device a non-obvious one? NONo. Did NTP really create any kind of technology? No. Did RIM come up with the idea independently of NTP, and actually execute on it, actually spending the money to engineer an actual device? Yes. If NTP wants to bitch, I think they should at LEAST have a fucking PRODUCT on the market. Instead, they sit on a non-invention and decide to sue when someone else thinks of it as well, because they think they can just prfit from everyone else's hard work. This is complete bullshit.
What REALLY gets me, is that congress practically runs on Blackberry. Just this past Thanksgiving I happened to be sitting on an airplane right next to my state senator Mitch McConnel. He's blackberrying away like the whole time from Louisville to Philadelphia. (I couldn't help but think of that American Dad episode where they steal Cheney's). But it is pretty well known that almost all of these senators and representatives are using blackberries for their wireless communications. So why aren't they speaking up about this. When a product they they use and rely on daily is threatened out of existance in the US, because of the laws that THEY have enabled, I mean, shouldn't this send some kind of wake-up call that patent law is serious FUCKED UP? I have actually read (please correct if wrong or confirm if really true) that blackberry service would shut down for everyone in the US except except for high ranking government officials, because they rely on the devices so much. Isn't this a huge double standard? Can they really say that our laws outlaw this technology for everyone except for them, because while it infringes patents, it is just too important for us political elite to not have. Obviously this should show that patent law in its current form is NOT contributing or encouraging the progression of science and useful arts.
Is this more just an effort to create a standardized DRM platform?
No. This is 100% about DRM for the coming convergence of the internet/PCs and television. To think it is really about anything else is foolhardy.
"ATTENTION CITIZENS. IF YOU HAVE TRAVELED TO THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES YOU MAY BE AT RISK FOR CARRYING THIS DISEASE. PLEASE SEE YOUR NEAREST HOSPITAL IMMEDIATLY IF YOU ARE AT RISK"
Why isn't such a message like that simply broadcast over the radio, television, and internet news? The only people who probably wouldn't get the message, even though there would be ample opportunity to receive it, would be poor people, as they are less likely to pay attention and react to the news. Poor people aren't traveling overseas anyway. So they wouldn't be on the proposed CDC list anyway. I don't see why just some general broadcast is not enough. No, this is about control. This is about letting the CDC and other organizations and governments know exactly where you are so they can round you up and herd you into some kind of quarintine in the event of some kind of pandemic.
Personally, I think people are missing a lot of aspects about this. I really think the FCC's primary goal here is a 'protect the children' sort of thing. They've already said they're trying to regulate the amount of "adult content" on cable and satelite television. While I think that a la Carte TV channel pricing is a good thing, I think the FCC reasoning is slightly different than some of the reasoning I see here. I think this is more the FCC trying to cater to such groups as the Parents Television Council, and not your average consumer. This is about giving lazy parents who don't want to figure out how to use their v-chip another way to block programming. This way, parents who just don't want this 'filth' coming into their homes, but still want cable television can do it. They can say we only want the Family Channel, Lifetime, Hallmark TV, and other good wholesome TV. Which is fine. There is nothing really wroing with that so to speak. I just think that THIS is the real reason the FCC is supporting a la Carte programming. It's not necessarily about giving consumer choice, that is just what happens to be the outcome if this particular bending over to busybody groups like the PTC.
On another note, as much as I think a la Carte pricing for TV channels is a pretty good thing, I don't really see it having that much of an impact in the long term. In the next 20 years, probably much much sooner if the big media companies quit kicking and screaming trying to fight it, the landscape of what we traditionally call 'television' is going to be incredibly different. Television is going internet, and in a big way. Think of all the bit-torrent tv show downloads. Think of all the people who don't really watch tv, but rent the seasons of good shows on DVD. People are sick of the traditional televsion program/commercial model. A la Carte channels distributed by cable operators? There isn't going to BE any TV channels anymore. It's going to be A la Carte shows bought off the internet. Apple's deal with ABC to sell shows on a per episode basis is really a significant step. A search aggrigate, like Google, is going to be keeping track of what kind of shows you like, and recommending what kind of shows you might be interested in. There will be no need for traditional television channels. Everything is going to be personalized. I'm telling everyone, right here, we are witnessing the end of the traditional television and media era. Just look at google video.
Right now we're just testing Google Video, so only a small amount of programming from a limited number of channels is included in your search results. But we're indexing new content every day and we'll be adding channels in the near future, so you should see more and more results from your searches in the coming months.
See, they're already DOING it. It's going to expand. It is going to really start with traditional television shows. Google will start telling people, "hey, you like ABC's Desperate Housewives, why dont you check out Irrational Ladies on NBC?" Eventually though, they're going to start mixing all those quirky internet videos in with their television show recommendations. Soon, all those internet videos, while generally have 0 production value, but tons of entertainment value (c'mon, how many times did you watch the Star Wars kid? Have you ever laughed so hard at something on television?), are going to overtake what was tradtionally a domain completley owned by corporate broadcasters and cable companies. We're going to see the end of bullshit lowest comon denominator programming like "Everybody Loves Raymod" and "Friends." Programming is going to be much more targeted at specific audiences. In this new marketspace, independent media, writers and actors, animators, etc are going to be much more on an equal footing with the traditional big players. I mean, look at South Park. That show pretty much came out of a Christmas greeting that two guys made that sort of spread on the internet. South Park could have just as easily ended up
Actually, I wonder if some channels will actually become FREE in the hopes of selling ads. (I guess that didn't work in newspapers and magazines, but they are cheap.) Most magazines probably would be free to consumers if they could. Only small fraction of most magazine income comes from the money subscribers pay. A vast majority comes from selling advertisemen space. A free magazine seems like it would make sense. More readers would have the magazine, right? More eyes for the advertisements, right? Well, actually, wrong. It all comes down to the value of the product. When you pay for something, you tend to associate a greater value to it. You're hard earned cash bought it. You appreciate it more. When you get something for free, you tend to not care so much. What magazine are you more likely to read? The one you got free in the mail, or the one that came because you subscribed and paid money for it? Advertisers know that when you pay for a magazine or a newspaper, you're more likely to actually read the damn thing and actually more likely to be interested in their advertisement and what they're selling.
Thats really a really weird thing for him to say. Tim Burton made two great Batman movies. Batman in 89, and Batman Returns in 92. Those were really the only two good superhero movies that came out of that era. After that, that was pretty much it. The genre wasn't really re-energized. I can't really even think of any other superhero movies from the 90's. The only ones I can think of are the next two Batman movies, directed by Joel Schumacher, were utter crap. It wasn't really until X-Men came out in 2000, a full eight years later from the last good superhero movie, that something came out that proved a superhero movie could be something other than a complete cheesefest. It's huge success, coupled with Spider-man's in 2002, is what is really responsible for this slew of new superhero movies. But we're seeing the same pattern again. A few good movies, and then a slew of crap. League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Fantastic Four, etc. We're also seeing a lot more superhero movies now because Hollywood is out of ideas. Nothing original really seems to be getting made now, and superhero movies fit nicely in with the Hollywood strategy of playing it safe. X-Men and Spider-man showed that superhero movies once again could be profitable. So they start producing tons. They already have a built in fan base. It's safe and easy to just start churning em out. Just pick a comic book hero and make a movie out of him. No thought required. It's like Awesome-O is behind this, not Tim Burton. I generally like his movies, but he didn't re-energize a thing.
There was a German Star Trek parody that came out last year called (T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1. I haven't seen it, but I saw ads on television for it when I was in Germany last year, and it looked pretty goofy. Raumschiff is the German word for spaceship, but Traumschiff would be like "dreamship". So it's like a dual meaning. Periode is Period. 1 is 1. Has anyone seen this movie? Is it worth watching? My German is only so-so, but my Trek is pretty good:) Will I be able to understand enough of this movie without a universal translator? Cause I'd really like to see it.
Too bad they suck so bad I wouldn't even download it for free.
First off, I'm a little unsure of axactly what constitutes a violation of the spyware law. Is it just the actual infection of a machine? What about other laws that were likely broken? What about the copy of the rootkit contained on the CD? It seems like it should be a violation of SOMETHING for each copy of the cd that Sony knowingly produced with this rootkit on it. Each production of a cd is meant with sale in mind, and each sale is pretty much an attempt to root an innocent persons machine. Does this not violate some anti hacking statute or something? And what about the copywrited code that was contained in the rootkit. Surely, Sony, or that hack of a company that created the DRM software, should be held liable for that. If Sony can sue people for obscene amounts for each 'illegal' copy of music on their hardrive, shouldn't each illegal copy of this GPL'd code be considered a violation of copyright? So I'm really happy that Texas is started to push legal action against Sony, but I'm also would like everyone to slow down a bit, and be cautious. I just don't want all the eggs to be in one basket. Sony needs to get called on ALL violations of law. I would hate to see action pushed forward too soon, before every violation is accounted for.
This is the obvious Microsoft response to the threat of open source office suites and open document formats. We've already seen stories concerning Microsoft losing business because of closed document formats. The closed formats have been enough of a concern where municipalities and other organizations have said "We're not going to use Office anymore." If this trend were to continue, it would pose a significant threat to Microsoft's revenue, as a large portion comes from selling Office products. This is essentially what Microsoft needs to do in order to deny people a solid justification from adopting other solutions. I still can't see how they justify the price, but that's another issue all together.
What happens when I upgrade my hardware?
Actually, I have a copy of gauntlet that was licensed. It had the standard gray cart, with the seal of quality and everything. I know just know that there was an unauthorized version witht he black cart, etc. I guess there was some kind of settlement or something.
He's not making a recommendation that people use outlook at home. He's saying "you must use outlook." And I know that's not true, as I have my mother set up with Thunderbird and it works fine. What he could say is "I recommend and can only give support to outlook." That would be another story all together. That would make his job just as easy. In this case, he either he doesn't know you can use another e-mail client (he is an mcse moron), or he blatently lied when he said you had to use outlook (He's a liar). But whatever, I guess that makes him perfectly qualified for a rank job in the public school system.
My whole point however, which we've drifted from, is that this reliance, or just perceived reliance on Microsoft products is institutionalized. People hear this kind of stuff every single day, much of it false, from people who are supposed to know what they are talking about. This everyday experience drives the notion that Microsoft is a necessity.
Oh, of course I have Thunderbird set up for her. But the thing is, I'm not the IT guy for everyone else in the school district. I'm not going to go around door to door installing another e-mail client on everyone's computer. My point is that I shouldn't have to go correct this moron's incorrect assertion. It's simply wrong for people in the positions of a degree of trust regarding computers, like your IT guy at work, and especially one in our educational system, to be feeding this kind of misinformation to people. It's the behavior of people like this IT guy, telling everyone you must use Outlook at home to get your e-mail, that further propagates the myth that you can't get away from Microsoft. I'll bet if our public institutions started using free software, like OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, while it may not spark a migration away from MS, at least it would start to get people comfortable with using other products.
My mother works for the local school district, and in order to check her e-mail from home, she is told "you must use outlook." I won't even mention how stupid it is for them to be using outlook considering all the security problems. Err, wait. I guess I just did.
I do a quite a bit of programming as a graduate computer engineering student, generally relating to the web, and preferably in Java. For smaller projects I prefer vim and some syntax highlighting, and for larger projects, I like to use eclipse. But being a student, I'm often at the whim of certain teacher preferences. For instance, I'm taking an introductory computer graphics class in which we're learning managed Direct3D. Obviously this requires windows. Anyway, my point being that I'm fairly versed with with alternate programming environments. So, I'm a bit curious as to why we're singling out Visual Studio. What about Eclipse? Does it not 'rot the brain' as well? What makes Visual Studio worse than any other IDE? Are we all supposed to go back to using just text editors, or are we just bashing Microsoft products here?
It seems like some people are focusing too much wysiwyg gui editor. That's stupid. I don't care what anyone says. I think the Window's forms editor is a godsend. I wish that the eclipse visual editor was anywhere NEAR close the ease and usefulness of the windows forms editor. I'm an engineer. I like to design slick systems that are componantized, modular, extendable, etc. I like the challenge of design, and I like the challenge of implenting those projects. What I do not like is spending hours trying to create a gui interface for the system. GUI programming is tedious, frustrating, and lets face it, It's BORING. Do I even need to say 'GridBagLayout?' Lets face it. The only real need for a super slick professional looking GUI is if your making a commercial, retail application. If that is your goal, you'll hire someone that specializes in creating and designing user interfaces. Otherwise, probably 95% of the time, there is no point waisting your time hand coding a gui. These tools are there to let you explore your creativity, and realize the beauty of your design without getting bogged down by mundane details, like button placement on a GUI. You'd be a fool NOT to use them.
Errr, I'm confused. If there was a lock-out chip, why do I recall playing Tengen games on the NES that weren't liscensed by Nintendo. I belive there were several Tengen games. Also I remeber the HARDEST GAME EVER: The Adventures of Dizzy. It was released unauthorized by Codemasters. I remeber there was a little switch in the back of the cart, and if the game didn't work in one position, you flicked it in the other.
Here I found a link that gives a bit of a run down between all the different unauthorized carts that were manufactured for the NES. Have a look.
Vidgame.Net
Wow, I rarely see a "Top N Things" list that I agree with, but I'd say this is pretty spot on. There are so many NES classics though, it's hard to fit them all in a top 15 list. I'd say these a few more A+ titles that should be considered as top NES games.
Metal Gear - This was the premier 'stealth' based game. And who can forget "the truck have started to move"?
Castlevania. (I'd say 2 and 3 of the series were equally awesome, but in different ways. 2 with the RPG elements and open map, and 3 with the multiple paths and characters.)
Earthbound - I belive the original Earthbound can be found English translated as Earthbound 0 in ROM form
Tecmo (Super) Bowl - Greatest football games EVAR!
Kid Icarus - I can't belive there hasn't been an update to this classic
Metroid - I really thought this would have been on 1up's top 15.
Kirby's Adventures - I really think this game was ahead of it's time. Current generation platformers still lack the depth of this of this title. Almost every enemy can be eaten, giving Kirby a different skill. Genius game design.
Dr. Mario, Tetris, RC Pro Am, Ninja Gaiden, Battletoads, TMNT, the list goes on and on...
Hrm..Why is it I have such a hard time thinking of such a great list for the current generation of systems? Is Nintendo right when it paints a bleak picture about the current state of the games industry?
How exactly is the relationship between Apple and the large record companies defined? Surly there is some kind of contract in which Apple pays X% of of an iTunes sale to the song's owning record label. If they record labels back out, won't it result in some sort of contractual breach? (Anyone who knows more, please reply)
I think the record companies (unsurprisingly) underestimated the the kind of sales that the iTMS would do. Now perhaps they're finally waking up to the reality of the situtation, that this is how people WANT to purchase and enjoy their music. I mean, how long ago was the old Napster? More than 5 years. FIVE YEARS. After all the bitching and moaning, the labels STILL don't have their own digitial distribution mechanisms. It just shows that the labels were and are still sooooo dimwitted and clueless. And now, "oh wait look, Apple is making money on this online store that we should have made ourselves 5 years ago to react to market demand. Apple should give us more money. Wahhhhh!" Well I say FUCK YOU record labels. You did this to yourself. You underestimated the market, your customers, the technology, and EVERY OTHER ASPECT of running your businesses. You signed deals with Apple letting them sell your music for 99 cents a track. It must have been a good deal then, right? Why else would you have signed to such a deal? If you're unhappy with the terms now, thats your own fault.
You're a fool if you think the European countries are any better. Pot, Kettle, etc.
How is this insightful at all. It's pure America bashing. I understand that the rest of the world has some issues with this country, but this post has no insight whatsoever.
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world.
I didn't know that was the goal of our government. I thought it was to look out for American interests. Not be "warm and fuzzy." Maybe we should have been warm and fuzzy with Hitler. (sorry for the Godwin)
Someone in the Government should really take a step back and ask themselves why this would actually matter at all. The UN is the ideal place to run the internet rules at the moment, its got the largest reach and global membership and a stated goal of being independent.
You're crazy. You think somehow it wouldn't actually matter if the US relinquished control of pretty much the most valuable information and communication infrastructure in the world? That we should just hand it over? I can see where perhaps your opinion comes from, especially if you aren't an American, but to say that somehow it just wouldn't matter and not be detrimental to US interests, which is the primary role of the US government in an international context, is just silly.
Cooperating with other countries is fine. We're cooperating with other countries already. Thats why people in other countries are..ON THE INTERNET. Cooperation shouldn't mean we have to relinquish control to an undemocratic body, filled with unelected members, such as the United Nations.
A matter of national policy that cannot be negotiated? I don't seem to recall the 132nd ammendment stating that internet domain ownership is the right of every american citizen.
WTF are you talking about. 132nd amendment? Right to internet domain ownership? What? I mean the internet was created essentially by the US government. I don't see why you think it is somehow unreasonable that the US won't negotiate handing over control to another entity.
Because co-operation is bad eh? No. We are already cooperating as I mentioned earlier. But giving other countries that kind of control is simply not good US policy. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
Damn those pesky Europeans for wanting oversight on a random organisation like ICANN which has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making.
Right. Because the UN has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making. Get a freakin clue.
If you'd RTFA you'd see that no, they are NOT related.