I could care less what the original xbox came with. A harddrive and wireless controller were supposed to be standard equipment this generation. When they first started showing this stuff, the first words out of my mouth were "it's about fucking time!"
Instead, "standard" is a machine you can't save games to and have to fiddle around back to plug a controller into. It's a step backwards. And how much do you want to bet that the cable won't reach my couch?
$300 is the right pricepoint. It just isn't the right equipment. To get the right equipment, I have to lay out an extra $100 and get a bunch of crap I don't want.
Instead of getting one when it comes out, I'll now be waiting to see what Sony does next. Getting your target audience to take a wait-and-see attitude is NOT a good stratedgy.
Game over. Microsoft just fucked this generation up. Everything that makes their system appealing over the competition is now an "extra". Everything that they've been hammering into the ground as an advantage is now an optional extra. Everything that got me excited about the system now costs extra.
Additionally, if you tell your computer to download and install the updates automatically (the "automatic updates" tab found in the system properties dialog), you'll get them as well.
The new policy has zero effect. People with "unvalidated" copies of windows can still download security updates. They can't download new 'feature releases'; versions of IE, MediaPlayer, DirectX, etc.
Even if you have to turn off the unit, it isn't hard to perform a disc swap. Save the game, swap the disc out, and boot with the new game binary + content. Whalla.
How can anyone really doubt this will not be true?
A full install of Myst IV comes to 7gb. Myst games have always pushed the storage boundary, and even THEY can't fill up dual layer DVD. And you think that a DVD just won't cut it? What kind of crack are you smoking?
If, by some miracle some company produces more than 9gb of content for their game, it isn't exactly difficult to put it onto a second disc (recall FFVII). As long as the disc doesn't have to be swapped every 3 hours it isn't a big deal.
I think the only real surprise going forward would be Microsoft deciding to go with Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD. But I just don't think they could swallow thier pride enough to do so, they are driven to be seen as the market leader.
They'll go with whichever one becomes the market leader; pride has nothing to do with it. They aren't, however, going to delay their launch or add $100 to the final cost of their machine in a wild gamble guessing what the final standard will end up being.
$20 says that the system won't support playing games on that media, just movies.
I was hit by a non-drunk bastard driving a 1970's era (ie: solid steel) 1/2 ton pickup traveling at 50mph; they hit in the driver's side of my (smallish) sports coupe. $14.5k damage. I walked away with a broken collar bone.
Vehicle size isn't as big of a factor as it used to be.
(as a side note, why do americans seem to call it a smart car, when the name is simply smart. we generally talk about a ford or a chevy or a a geo metro, not a geo metro car)
Because smart is an adjective.
Joe: "Hey, have you seen the new Smart?" Bob: "Smart what?" Joe: "Car." Bob: "How is a car smart?" Joe: "#%!@"
You can also watch the 11-01-2004 episode of 5th gear and watch them crash it into various other objects. It holds up very well, especially considering its size.
Interesting. Though if it were truely "something new" (as opposed to a modification in scope to the original application), I would think that would require them to submit a new patent application.
The GP stated "Hey, if you can't beat 'em, litigate 'em to death". No speculation here at all. He stated that Microsoft was beating Apple through an act of litigation, which is false.
He then used said false statement for justification for writing "M$", and expressed puzzlement at why people bitch and moan when he uses M$.
My response was to point out that there was no litigation, that his premise for using M$ was false, and that perchance was why people bitched and moaned when he uses M$.
You then enter the fray, and insert the word "yet", and claim that my statement that no litigation was currently in process was speculation. In true troll form, you proceed to attack me for speculating about the future (which I had not done while using speculation yourself about future acts to further your side of the arguement.
I respond, pointing this out.
You respond with another troll post, apparently trying to create a new definition for the word speculation or exhibiting some form of selective amnesia.
I also never claimed that you were speaking for the OSS community. You are a member of the OSS community in some, way, shape or form (otherwise you wouldn't be reading slashdot). Everything you do does reflect on that community, good or bad. Just as everything I do in the presense of a foreign national affects that person's perception of Americans, everything you do influences people's perception of those in the OSS community.
School is now closed. Good luck with your summer session.
Re: Dates. Interesting. I was just involved in another thread that went into more detail about "who wins" in a near-tie situation; unfortunately it wasn't as clear cut as I had thought. 35 USC 102 describes what will prevent someone from obtaining a patent.
Section b of 35 USC 102: b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
Section g refers to (essentially) the tie breaking rules, and the definition is fuzzy (in that things like "diligence" come into play).
Gah. This is why lawyers have jobs.
I haven't seen either of the actual Patents involved, though the gist of the research paper seems to be about intelligent playlist generation based on what kind of music the user wants to listen to. My guess is that Apple's patent somehow encompasses the playlist invention thingy.
Wow, this is more complicated that I thought; I've added the sections of note here:
35 USC 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the application for patent, or b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or g) 1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therin establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Section a I don't think is terribly relevent; depends on how you read it. Section b would seem to be very much not in Apple's favor, but I'm not sure how it effect Microsoft's patent. Section g is probably the meat of things, and is probably the most fuzzy.
While the patent office may consider the dates of first conception, it isn't the only thing they consider.
Any time a statement is made about a future event, it is speculation. I made a statement about the present, which is fact.
The GP stated that Microsoft was involved in litigation with Apple over the situation. This is false. You've stated that they haven't done it yet, with the implication being that they will do it in the future. THAT is speculation. Not to mention that you line of reasoning is a logical fallicy.
People with attitudes like you are why people scoff at the OSS community.
No, I'm saying that at some point in the 2001-2002 timeframe, Platt published a paper. The article doesn't state precicely when the paper was first published. We can't determine who gets the patent until we know when the paper was first published.
It doesn't matter when he actually did it, what matters is the date of public disclosure. The patent office doesn't care about anything else.
Once you disclose the invention to the public, the clock is running, and you've got ~ a year to apply for a patent on your invention. With that in mind, the earliest Apple could have revealed their invention while still being able to patent it would have been 10/2001.
I'm too lazy to type it in a second time for someone who can't be bothered to either a) distinguish between publishing a research paper and a patent application or b) understand how patents work
Let's summarize the available information: 1) Apple releases iPod late 2001 2) Microsoft publishes paper in 2001-2002 3) Microsoft applies for patent 5/2002 4) Apple applies for patent 10/2002
With your logic, item 1 trumps 3 (which is correct), but item 2 is irrelevent (which is incorrect).
In reality, what it boils down to is either 1 trumps 2, or 2 trumps 1. 3 and 4 don't matter (within certain limits, which aren't relevent in this case). In other words, the first date of public disclosure of the invention is what matters, not the patent application date.
Slashdot Mirror
I could care less what the original xbox came with. A harddrive and wireless controller were supposed to be standard equipment this generation. When they first started showing this stuff, the first words out of my mouth were "it's about fucking time!"
Instead, "standard" is a machine you can't save games to and have to fiddle around back to plug a controller into. It's a step backwards. And how much do you want to bet that the cable won't reach my couch?
$300 is the right pricepoint. It just isn't the right equipment. To get the right equipment, I have to lay out an extra $100 and get a bunch of crap I don't want.
Instead of getting one when it comes out, I'll now be waiting to see what Sony does next. Getting your target audience to take a wait-and-see attitude is NOT a good stratedgy.
Game over. Microsoft just fucked this generation up. Everything that makes their system appealing over the competition is now an "extra". Everything that they've been hammering into the ground as an advantage is now an optional extra. Everything that got me excited about the system now costs extra.
No thanks.
think the main design flaw in the Xbox 360 is the games. They aren't designed for Japanese gamers
- summit/); if they can't produce games "designed for Japanese gamers", nobody can.
They've got every single major Japaneese developer on board (http://www.majornelson.com/2005/07/25/tokyo-xbox
You can also find them here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current. aspx
Additionally, if you tell your computer to download and install the updates automatically (the "automatic updates" tab found in the system properties dialog), you'll get them as well.
A KB article with the files are made available the same time that the patch is published on the Windows Update site.
. aspx
You can find a list of the bulletins here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current
Check the above URL when a new patch comes out and you'll have no problem obtaining it.
From where? Windows Update? I never claimed that Windows Update would give it to you, rather I just said that you could still obtain the patch.
n /MS05-039.mspx
Go here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulleti
Click the download link apropriate for your platform.
Install.
Enjoy.
The new policy has zero effect. People with "unvalidated" copies of windows can still download security updates. They can't download new 'feature releases'; versions of IE, MediaPlayer, DirectX, etc.
Even if you have to turn off the unit, it isn't hard to perform a disc swap. Save the game, swap the disc out, and boot with the new game binary + content. Whalla.
Think of all the HD cutscenes game makers will want to include
...
That's probably the best arguement AGAINST providing obscene amounts of storage space
How can anyone really doubt this will not be true?
A full install of Myst IV comes to 7gb. Myst games have always pushed the storage boundary, and even THEY can't fill up dual layer DVD. And you think that a DVD just won't cut it? What kind of crack are you smoking?
If, by some miracle some company produces more than 9gb of content for their game, it isn't exactly difficult to put it onto a second disc (recall FFVII). As long as the disc doesn't have to be swapped every 3 hours it isn't a big deal.
I think the only real surprise going forward would be Microsoft deciding to go with Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD. But I just don't think they could swallow thier pride enough to do so, they are driven to be seen as the market leader.
They'll go with whichever one becomes the market leader; pride has nothing to do with it. They aren't, however, going to delay their launch or add $100 to the final cost of their machine in a wild gamble guessing what the final standard will end up being.
$20 says that the system won't support playing games on that media, just movies.
I was hit by a non-drunk bastard driving a 1970's era (ie: solid steel) 1/2 ton pickup traveling at 50mph; they hit in the driver's side of my (smallish) sports coupe. $14.5k damage. I walked away with a broken collar bone.
Vehicle size isn't as big of a factor as it used to be.
(as a side note, why do americans seem to call it a smart car, when the name is simply smart. we generally talk about a ford or a chevy or a a geo metro, not a geo metro car)
Because smart is an adjective.
Joe: "Hey, have you seen the new Smart?"
Bob: "Smart what?"
Joe: "Car."
Bob: "How is a car smart?"
Joe: "#%!@"
You can also watch the 11-01-2004 episode of 5th gear and watch them crash it into various other objects. It holds up very well, especially considering its size.
, but they miss the point due to the "more/bigger is better" phenomenon evident in less-evolved humans
:)
It isn't so much that "more/bigger is better", rather it's more like "more/bigger is more fun."
Interesting. Though if it were truely "something new" (as opposed to a modification in scope to the original application), I would think that would require them to submit a new patent application.
Let's get the play by play here, shall we?
The GP stated "Hey, if you can't beat 'em, litigate 'em to death". No speculation here at all. He stated that Microsoft was beating Apple through an act of litigation, which is false.
He then used said false statement for justification for writing "M$", and expressed puzzlement at why people bitch and moan when he uses M$.
My response was to point out that there was no litigation, that his premise for using M$ was false, and that perchance was why people bitched and moaned when he uses M$.
You then enter the fray, and insert the word "yet", and claim that my statement that no litigation was currently in process was speculation. In true troll form, you proceed to attack me for speculating about the future (which I had not done while using speculation yourself about future acts to further your side of the arguement.
I respond, pointing this out.
You respond with another troll post, apparently trying to create a new definition for the word speculation or exhibiting some form of selective amnesia.
I also never claimed that you were speaking for the OSS community. You are a member of the OSS community in some, way, shape or form (otherwise you wouldn't be reading slashdot). Everything you do does reflect on that community, good or bad. Just as everything I do in the presense of a foreign national affects that person's perception of Americans, everything you do influences people's perception of those in the OSS community.
School is now closed. Good luck with your summer session.
Re: Dates. Interesting. I was just involved in another thread that went into more detail about "who wins" in a near-tie situation; unfortunately it wasn't as clear cut as I had thought. 35 USC 102 describes what will prevent someone from obtaining a patent.
Section b of 35 USC 102:
b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
Section g refers to (essentially) the tie breaking rules, and the definition is fuzzy (in that things like "diligence" come into play).
Gah. This is why lawyers have jobs.
I haven't seen either of the actual Patents involved, though the gist of the research paper seems to be about intelligent playlist generation based on what kind of music the user wants to listen to. My guess is that Apple's patent somehow encompasses the playlist invention thingy.
Wow, this is more complicated that I thought; I've added the sections of note here:
35 USC 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless --
a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the application for patent, or
b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
g) 1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therin establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
Section a I don't think is terribly relevent; depends on how you read it. Section b would seem to be very much not in Apple's favor, but I'm not sure how it effect Microsoft's patent. Section g is probably the meat of things, and is probably the most fuzzy.
While the patent office may consider the dates of first conception, it isn't the only thing they consider.
It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Any time a statement is made about a future event, it is speculation. I made a statement about the present, which is fact.
The GP stated that Microsoft was involved in litigation with Apple over the situation. This is false. You've stated that they haven't done it yet, with the implication being that they will do it in the future. THAT is speculation. Not to mention that you line of reasoning is a logical fallicy.
People with attitudes like you are why people scoff at the OSS community.
No, I'm saying that at some point in the 2001-2002 timeframe, Platt published a paper. The article doesn't state precicely when the paper was first published. We can't determine who gets the patent until we know when the paper was first published.
It doesn't matter when he actually did it, what matters is the date of public disclosure. The patent office doesn't care about anything else.
Once you disclose the invention to the public, the clock is running, and you've got ~ a year to apply for a patent on your invention. With that in mind, the earliest Apple could have revealed their invention while still being able to patent it would have been 10/2001.
It'll be even funnier after you realize that Start.com was up and running months before Google's start page ...
As far as the patent office is concerned, the "time of invention" is the first date of public disclosure.
Read this post:
t hreshold=-1&commentsort=3&tid=181&mode=thread&pid= 13310089#13310287
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158903&
I'm too lazy to type it in a second time for someone who can't be bothered to either
a) distinguish between publishing a research paper and a patent application or
b) understand how patents work
You are correct and completely missing the point.
Let's summarize the available information:
1) Apple releases iPod late 2001
2) Microsoft publishes paper in 2001-2002
3) Microsoft applies for patent 5/2002
4) Apple applies for patent 10/2002
With your logic, item 1 trumps 3 (which is correct), but item 2 is irrelevent (which is incorrect).
In reality, what it boils down to is either 1 trumps 2, or 2 trumps 1. 3 and 4 don't matter (within certain limits, which aren't relevent in this case). In other words, the first date of public disclosure of the invention is what matters, not the patent application date.