It's all good for IT workers, I think. I mean, after the whole collapse of the stupid.com companies, there was an absolutely saturated market of IT workers with no jobs.
Most of them weren't very good at working with computers. They got into the field because the jobs were plentiful and the salaries were very good. If you'd used a computer, or passed a couple Microsoft certs, you'd land at least 65K.
So therein lies the problem with people that actually enjoy computing and IT, enjoy learning it, and enjoy implementing it. I like my job. It's interesting and I get paid well for it. But it took several years of competing with crappy know-nothing IT workers for a position. It doesn't matter how much better your resume is then anyone else's; when there's 800 resumes submit, your changes are low.
I hope that the trend continues upwards; weeding out the bad IT workers and creating more demand for people that are good at what we do.
Well, I don't know. I think Software patents are ridiculous for what they're applied to, but ridding the country of them completely could backfire severely.
You could have companies like IBM and Intel deploying spies in every start-up company that exists, and steal everyone's ideas, with no repercussions. It could severely stifle new invention and creativity, because.. "why bother trying? Intel will steal it and sell it anyways."
However, patents as they exist today are severely broken. There has to be a better way. But getting rid of all controls sounds like a bad idea.
I hear ya, man. Driving is so god damned expensive, and so god damned necessary. Unless you live in the major cities, you have to drive to live. Public transportation in this country went into the shitter hard in the 70's and 80's and has never recovered completely.
I'd rather have a train or bus drive my ass to work while I took in some Z's.
So (just like smoking) because it's damned near impossible to quit driving, the local state government nails everyone to the wall with fees, fines, and everything in between.
And don't even get me STARTED when I hear people say "driving is a privilege, not a right." I call bullshit on that! If this country is so free, then why does someone need to bestow this "privilege" on me?
That's just silly, because they wouldn't have any say in the matter. It would be a reimplementation of the OS API's and wouldn't use Apple code. Or, are you so naive to think that if Microsoft had any say in the matter, they'd have let the WINE project just keep on truckin'?
"The second reason would be that the people who might work on it are already too busy trying to do the same thing for Windows applications"
That's retarded. Can't you think past your own little box? There's many tens of thousands of programmers out there that could do this work. Windows API's aren't similar to OSX API's. Why would you get the idea that it would be the same people doing a "WINE/OSX" as WINE, and they're "busy" working on Windows WINE?
"In which case I believe that you are a little bit paranoid."
No, but I think we should all be a little cautious, don't you agree? There NEEDS to be checks and balances, and we need organizations like the ACLU to make sure our civil liberties aren't trampled.
"Do you use a credit card? They can trace your movements based on your expenses. Do you own property or pay taxes? Guess how much information those two facts give to the 'system'. Do you have a passport? Gosh, they could use that to track your movements across national boundaries. Don't tell me that you must have a cell phone, because you do realise they know where you are - or where your cell phone is - anyway, don't you"
And every single one of those items you mention currently requires probable cause and a court approved warrant.
The license plate scanning requires no such thing to tag me and record my movements and make it available immediately.
"The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused."
When, is correct. Because it WILL BE. Why are you okay with that? I'm not. I don't want the chance to exist.
"...AND they're going to use it for every petty crime! Sounds kinda like a police state to me."
The problem with this, and what apparently a lot of people don't realize, is that there's a SHIT LOAD of laws on the book. There's so many little stupid laws, and the majority of them are never enforced. When was the last time someone got fined for taking a right on red? Or.. jaywalking? And those are actually common laws, that most people know about. There's thousands and thousands of others that we don't know about unless we're lawyers (and even then...)
So imagine the day when the police put all this technology in place, to "saved teh childrenz!" and decide to flip the switch, and turn it on for *all violations?*
Suddenly, the state rakes in millions of dollars in fines, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. They'll have the population by the balls. Awesome!
Privacy matters to me, and apparently matters to you too. If we allow these types of systems to creep into our society on the merit of "it will savez the childrens!!" type arguments, with no objections, then it will be a sad day when the powers that be finally hook everything together and can pinpoint your exact location, with live video feeds, no matter where you go. Privacy is difficult to quantify, but it's a very real thing that I highly value.
Imagine a world where jaywalking gets you automatically direct-withdrawal fines from your bank account? And how about when your credit score goes down because you took a right-on-red where you weren't supposed to, therefore marking you as "risky?"
I don't think those things are very far fetched. They don't just use these new systems to catch offenders; they store the data and can use it against you at any time for the rest of your life. It'll be awesome to be rejected for a job because I was tracked walking around NYC on a day I called in sick, 10 years ago.
Don't think that because you say "end of story" that it becomes The Truth. It's completely subjective. Having a controller with both buttons and motion sensitivity might actually just be better.
And shit, sometimes you just want to sit back with a beer and play a game without standing up and flailing all over the place.
Who used to think sports games required realism? Didn't you ever play Summer Games on the Atari or C64?
I wouldn't say that there's a significant market that doesn't give a "toss" about graphics and sound. I have several friends with the Wii and all of them say "I wish the games looked better. It kinda sucks." I mean, yea, it's fun to play now and then. I never said it wasn't. But it's kinda like.. a video arcade game. Fun for a night, but you're done once you've player for a couple hours.
The Wii proves that it doesn't have to be the latest technology for people to buy it, but it doesn't prove that people don't care or don't want it.
You personify the problem with game system fanboys. I never said I owned anything, and in fact I own both a Wii and a PS3. So which one are you referring to as "my" console?
And sorry, but FPS games demand more realism and the Wii can't provide it. It doesn't matter though, because I own no FPS games and don't intend on buying any. FPS belongs on the desktop PC.
Everything except HD? That's laughable; I won't even bother trying to open this can of worms.
BTW, the PS3 controller also has built-in accelerometers.
And what kind of game have you ever played that's not interactive? Moron. Just because you swing your arm instead of hit a button doesn't make it any more interactive. But if you want to swing your arm, you can do that with a PS3 too.
I think other vendors will start to sell mainstream (ie not Workstation class) PC's and notebooks with Linux installed. While there's probably discounts here and there, Microsoft doesn't give them Windows for free, and they are required to support Windows and other pre-installed software in-house. (That's part of why Dell can get Windows cheap; THEY have to support it.)
I don't really see where Linux will cost them any more, and if Dell decides to really support it, they already have a support organization in place.
"Black background with bright letters is NOT easier on the eyes. I prefer white background because I dont have burned white lines on my eyes after reading."
Not sure why you're being modded as flamebait. White background with black text is easier on the eyes, absolutely. You're right; you get the "looked directly at a bright light" shadows in your vision if you look at a white-on-black screen for a few moments.
There's certain times when I like white (or preferably grey) on black, such a a terminal session; I think it's easier to see what's going on on the screen. But not for any sort of literature.
Well.. you know the saying.. put enough monkeys in front of keyboards and you'll get Shakespeare..
The Wii is very gimmicky, and I feel as though the big reason it did well is because: A) It was billed out as a "next gen" console (even though it's not) and cost half what the competition is charging (because it's three year old tech.)
Just you watch. Give the market a couple years, and see where the Wii stands then.
As much as I hate to admit it, it's a valid point. OSX is "UNIX-Like" and is very user friendly.
(As a foot-note, honestly I really like OSX a lot, but I don't like many of the artificial limitations Apple imposes on it. I don't like that I'm trading one proprietary system for another (in the way of going from Windows to OSX) and I really would prefer to pick what hardware I want to use, since new Macintosh's are the same as PC's in every way but an artificial limitation. Wouldn't it be lovely if Apple just said "Screw it, let's completely Open Source MacOS since all our money we make is on iPods now anyways." It would make me wonder how long Linux on the Desktop would hold out if that happened..)
Hey, who's the kiddo? You *did* say "never" didn't you?
It doesn't matter how much the kernel is built for joe shmoe. It doesn't matter. If you've installed any recent distribution lately you'd see that there's a lot of attention to the desktop experience and things have gotten a great deal better. Yup, building a viable OS these days, with computers and software sharing so much complexity and user demands so different between users is very difficult. It's amazing how far they've come.
It also doesn't matter how long UNIX systems have been around. They were never intended to be a serious desktop replacement (partly because there WAS no such thing in the early UNIX days) where as recent Linux has been.
You need to separate what you think Linux is and what you think a Distribution is. Ubuntu is not the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is not Mandriva.
"That's part of the reason why Linux will never really hit it big on the desktop."
Never?
Never, you say? Why do you say never? Because this guy thinks everyone should manually set priorities on processes?
No. It's because GNU/Linux distributions are not Windows Compatible. That's why. It has a little bit to do with user-friendliness, a little bit to do with hardware compatibility, but almost completely to do with the fact that you can't run Windows software.
Every day, some shmuck like you says "it will NEVER be big" but every day it gets a little bigger. Why don't you just sit back and see what happens?
The big early adopter crowd doesn't hold as much weight as you may think. They're likely to buy all the systems anyways.
And yes, it's ONLY 10 million. Did you not read the number I posted? Sony sold ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION (there, I spelled it out for you) Playstation 2 systems. That means there's a huge market out there, and it's only getting bigger. And that also means that the market is not just for people that can't handle any games besides the Wii games.
One of the biggest questions I ever get when someone sees my PS3 or I tell them I have one, is "Ohh, how do the movies look on that thing!" You say the Blu-Ray disc issue is a non-starter. That's complete bullshit; straight from your ass. It's a huge selling point, and a very, very common question. And are you kidding me? Besides the people that buy HDTV's and yet still watch all SD TV, people want to use their HDTV's as high definition sets. Do you actually think that nobody that buys HDTV's with high definition movies in mind? And even if all movies were an extra $10 (which they're not always) you don't think it's worth getting a movie with much better detail, potentially much better sound, and cooler features, that will make full use of your HD system? Not to mention the fact that squabbling over $10 isn't really that sane when it comes to people that buy these new game systems and TV's to match.
You say "Up front cost of the 360" - yea, that's exactly it, isn't it. Up Front cost. Because with the PS3, you don't have to buy a separate Hard Drive (for the cheap model, or to get more then a measly 20GB) or Wifi (for the cheap model) or expensive memory cards (you can use cheap-o-matic cards of varying type on the PS3) or an HD Disc player that sits.. on top or next to the 360 awkwardly.
Again you harp on the retail market issue. Microsoft sells lots of small games on their Live system, and Sony does it with the PS3. Because games are large, I don't expect to see a huge number of titles available via PSN anytime soon, but even if they do.. it only helps bring in sales. You want this game? Pay here and wait 15 minutes on your couch. The money is in online sales, if the past decade of the Internet has taught you anything at all.
If you actually think stores would stop stocking PS3's because some games are available online, then I know you're just trying to spread bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all good for IT workers, I think. I mean, after the whole collapse of the stupid .com companies, there was an absolutely saturated market of IT workers with no jobs.
Most of them weren't very good at working with computers. They got into the field because the jobs were plentiful and the salaries were very good. If you'd used a computer, or passed a couple Microsoft certs, you'd land at least 65K.
So therein lies the problem with people that actually enjoy computing and IT, enjoy learning it, and enjoy implementing it. I like my job. It's interesting and I get paid well for it. But it took several years of competing with crappy know-nothing IT workers for a position. It doesn't matter how much better your resume is then anyone else's; when there's 800 resumes submit, your changes are low.
I hope that the trend continues upwards; weeding out the bad IT workers and creating more demand for people that are good at what we do.
I prefer Stop RAM (STRAM.)
Well, I don't know. I think Software patents are ridiculous for what they're applied to, but ridding the country of them completely could backfire severely.
You could have companies like IBM and Intel deploying spies in every start-up company that exists, and steal everyone's ideas, with no repercussions. It could severely stifle new invention and creativity, because.. "why bother trying? Intel will steal it and sell it anyways."
However, patents as they exist today are severely broken. There has to be a better way. But getting rid of all controls sounds like a bad idea.
I hear ya, man. Driving is so god damned expensive, and so god damned necessary. Unless you live in the major cities, you have to drive to live. Public transportation in this country went into the shitter hard in the 70's and 80's and has never recovered completely.
I'd rather have a train or bus drive my ass to work while I took in some Z's.
So (just like smoking) because it's damned near impossible to quit driving, the local state government nails everyone to the wall with fees, fines, and everything in between.
And don't even get me STARTED when I hear people say "driving is a privilege, not a right." I call bullshit on that! If this country is so free, then why does someone need to bestow this "privilege" on me?
"Apple isn't going to allow it to happen."
That's just silly, because they wouldn't have any say in the matter. It would be a reimplementation of the OS API's and wouldn't use Apple code. Or, are you so naive to think that if Microsoft had any say in the matter, they'd have let the WINE project just keep on truckin'?
"The second reason would be that the people who might work on it are already too busy trying to do the same thing for Windows applications"
That's retarded. Can't you think past your own little box? There's many tens of thousands of programmers out there that could do this work. Windows API's aren't similar to OSX API's. Why would you get the idea that it would be the same people doing a "WINE/OSX" as WINE, and they're "busy" working on Windows WINE?
"In which case I believe that you are a little bit paranoid."
No, but I think we should all be a little cautious, don't you agree? There NEEDS to be checks and balances, and we need organizations like the ACLU to make sure our civil liberties aren't trampled.
"Do you use a credit card? They can trace your movements based on your expenses. Do you own property or pay taxes? Guess how much information those two facts give to the 'system'. Do you have a passport? Gosh, they could use that to track your movements across national boundaries. Don't tell me that you must have a cell phone, because you do realise they know where you are - or where your cell phone is - anyway, don't you"
And every single one of those items you mention currently requires probable cause and a court approved warrant.
The license plate scanning requires no such thing to tag me and record my movements and make it available immediately.
"The time to be up in arms is when the systems are abused."
When, is correct. Because it WILL BE. Why are you okay with that? I'm not. I don't want the chance to exist.
"...AND they're going to use it for every petty crime! Sounds kinda like a police state to me."
The problem with this, and what apparently a lot of people don't realize, is that there's a SHIT LOAD of laws on the book. There's so many little stupid laws, and the majority of them are never enforced. When was the last time someone got fined for taking a right on red? Or.. jaywalking? And those are actually common laws, that most people know about. There's thousands and thousands of others that we don't know about unless we're lawyers (and even then...)
So imagine the day when the police put all this technology in place, to "saved teh childrenz!" and decide to flip the switch, and turn it on for *all violations?*
Suddenly, the state rakes in millions of dollars in fines, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. They'll have the population by the balls. Awesome!
"if I'm not doing anything wrong... I've got nothing to fear, right?"
You're kidding, right? Because that's the single most repeated statement for mass surveillance, and it's the most ignorant.
"Sorry, cars = walking around in public. The information has always been there,"
Why do you believe that being "in public" means it's OK for us to be tracked, watched, and scrutinized? I'm not comfortable with that. Why are you?
Privacy matters to me, and apparently matters to you too. If we allow these types of systems to creep into our society on the merit of "it will savez the childrens!!" type arguments, with no objections, then it will be a sad day when the powers that be finally hook everything together and can pinpoint your exact location, with live video feeds, no matter where you go. Privacy is difficult to quantify, but it's a very real thing that I highly value.
Imagine a world where jaywalking gets you automatically direct-withdrawal fines from your bank account? And how about when your credit score goes down because you took a right-on-red where you weren't supposed to, therefore marking you as "risky?"
I don't think those things are very far fetched. They don't just use these new systems to catch offenders; they store the data and can use it against you at any time for the rest of your life. It'll be awesome to be rejected for a job because I was tracked walking around NYC on a day I called in sick, 10 years ago.
Don't think that because you say "end of story" that it becomes The Truth. It's completely subjective. Having a controller with both buttons and motion sensitivity might actually just be better.
And shit, sometimes you just want to sit back with a beer and play a game without standing up and flailing all over the place.
Who used to think sports games required realism? Didn't you ever play Summer Games on the Atari or C64?
.. a video arcade game. Fun for a night, but you're done once you've player for a couple hours.
I wouldn't say that there's a significant market that doesn't give a "toss" about graphics and sound. I have several friends with the Wii and all of them say "I wish the games looked better. It kinda sucks." I mean, yea, it's fun to play now and then. I never said it wasn't. But it's kinda like
The Wii proves that it doesn't have to be the latest technology for people to buy it, but it doesn't prove that people don't care or don't want it.
"Many times people will ask for a "Windows XP" or a "Windows Vista" and not for a computer."
That's so ridiculous that I think you're full of shit.
You personify the problem with game system fanboys. I never said I owned anything, and in fact I own both a Wii and a PS3. So which one are you referring to as "my" console?
And sorry, but FPS games demand more realism and the Wii can't provide it. It doesn't matter though, because I own no FPS games and don't intend on buying any. FPS belongs on the desktop PC.
Everything except HD? That's laughable; I won't even bother trying to open this can of worms.
BTW, the PS3 controller also has built-in accelerometers.
And what kind of game have you ever played that's not interactive? Moron. Just because you swing your arm instead of hit a button doesn't make it any more interactive. But if you want to swing your arm, you can do that with a PS3 too.
I think other vendors will start to sell mainstream (ie not Workstation class) PC's and notebooks with Linux installed. While there's probably discounts here and there, Microsoft doesn't give them Windows for free, and they are required to support Windows and other pre-installed software in-house. (That's part of why Dell can get Windows cheap; THEY have to support it.)
I don't really see where Linux will cost them any more, and if Dell decides to really support it, they already have a support organization in place.
I'd venture to say they don't ask for Windows. They ask for "a computer" and they *assume* that means Windows.
They don't know any better.
"Black background with bright letters is NOT easier on the eyes. I prefer white background because I dont have burned white lines on my eyes after reading."
Not sure why you're being modded as flamebait. White background with black text is easier on the eyes, absolutely. You're right; you get the "looked directly at a bright light" shadows in your vision if you look at a white-on-black screen for a few moments.
There's certain times when I like white (or preferably grey) on black, such a a terminal session; I think it's easier to see what's going on on the screen. But not for any sort of literature.
"No offense, but I saw the Wii coming."
Well.. you know the saying.. put enough monkeys in front of keyboards and you'll get Shakespeare..
The Wii is very gimmicky, and I feel as though the big reason it did well is because: A) It was billed out as a "next gen" console (even though it's not) and cost half what the competition is charging (because it's three year old tech.)
Just you watch. Give the market a couple years, and see where the Wii stands then.
So much for reading the thread, because I was just quoting the person I replied to, which said UNIX-Like.
Get a grip, fanboy.
How about let's just use existing words in the English Language:
...
Compartmentalize
Seperation
Isolation
Protection
As much as I hate to admit it, it's a valid point. OSX is "UNIX-Like" and is very user friendly.
(As a foot-note, honestly I really like OSX a lot, but I don't like many of the artificial limitations Apple imposes on it. I don't like that I'm trading one proprietary system for another (in the way of going from Windows to OSX) and I really would prefer to pick what hardware I want to use, since new Macintosh's are the same as PC's in every way but an artificial limitation. Wouldn't it be lovely if Apple just said "Screw it, let's completely Open Source MacOS since all our money we make is on iPods now anyways." It would make me wonder how long Linux on the Desktop would hold out if that happened..)
Hey, who's the kiddo? You *did* say "never" didn't you?
It doesn't matter how much the kernel is built for joe shmoe. It doesn't matter. If you've installed any recent distribution lately you'd see that there's a lot of attention to the desktop experience and things have gotten a great deal better. Yup, building a viable OS these days, with computers and software sharing so much complexity and user demands so different between users is very difficult. It's amazing how far they've come.
It also doesn't matter how long UNIX systems have been around. They were never intended to be a serious desktop replacement (partly because there WAS no such thing in the early UNIX days) where as recent Linux has been.
You need to separate what you think Linux is and what you think a Distribution is. Ubuntu is not the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is not Mandriva.
"That's part of the reason why Linux will never really hit it big on the desktop."
Never?
Never, you say? Why do you say never? Because this guy thinks everyone should manually set priorities on processes?
No. It's because GNU/Linux distributions are not Windows Compatible. That's why. It has a little bit to do with user-friendliness, a little bit to do with hardware compatibility, but almost completely to do with the fact that you can't run Windows software.
Every day, some shmuck like you says "it will NEVER be big" but every day it gets a little bigger. Why don't you just sit back and see what happens?
Wow, and Microsoft actually pays you to spread that crap? They should ask for a refund because it's just not helping you.
It's not about Microsoft, it's about freedom. Get your head out of your ass, shill.
You must be living in a dream world.
The big early adopter crowd doesn't hold as much weight as you may think. They're likely to buy all the systems anyways.
And yes, it's ONLY 10 million. Did you not read the number I posted? Sony sold ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION (there, I spelled it out for you) Playstation 2 systems. That means there's a huge market out there, and it's only getting bigger. And that also means that the market is not just for people that can't handle any games besides the Wii games.
One of the biggest questions I ever get when someone sees my PS3 or I tell them I have one, is "Ohh, how do the movies look on that thing!" You say the Blu-Ray disc issue is a non-starter. That's complete bullshit; straight from your ass. It's a huge selling point, and a very, very common question. And are you kidding me? Besides the people that buy HDTV's and yet still watch all SD TV, people want to use their HDTV's as high definition sets. Do you actually think that nobody that buys HDTV's with high definition movies in mind? And even if all movies were an extra $10 (which they're not always) you don't think it's worth getting a movie with much better detail, potentially much better sound, and cooler features, that will make full use of your HD system? Not to mention the fact that squabbling over $10 isn't really that sane when it comes to people that buy these new game systems and TV's to match.
You say "Up front cost of the 360" - yea, that's exactly it, isn't it. Up Front cost. Because with the PS3, you don't have to buy a separate Hard Drive (for the cheap model, or to get more then a measly 20GB) or Wifi (for the cheap model) or expensive memory cards (you can use cheap-o-matic cards of varying type on the PS3) or an HD Disc player that sits.. on top or next to the 360 awkwardly.
Again you harp on the retail market issue. Microsoft sells lots of small games on their Live system, and Sony does it with the PS3. Because games are large, I don't expect to see a huge number of titles available via PSN anytime soon, but even if they do.. it only helps bring in sales. You want this game? Pay here and wait 15 minutes on your couch. The money is in online sales, if the past decade of the Internet has taught you anything at all.
If you actually think stores would stop stocking PS3's because some games are available online, then I know you're just trying to spread bullshit.