Incidences of having to endlessly go through trial and error has nothing to do with solving puzzles. I am all for having puzzles in games, but there should also be some flexibility at times.
Having a solution with no clues how to find it is not a puzzle, it's an exercise in frustration.
An example is the ridiculous training parachute drop in the America's Army game; without completing the training, the game was restricted. Completing this training involved a squence of looking one way, looking another, doing this and that which was really not at all logical or indicated in the preliminary training, and a lot of people (including myself) had trouble with this.
Sometimes I believe that some game developers do not consider that people will derive more enjoyment from games if they have a sense of reward and accomplishment from solving a puzzle, rather than a sense of relief that a ponderous chore has finally been completed. If too many games have too many dreary chores to complete, then where is the fun in gaming?
I have held out a long time hoping a wifi iPod would be introduced. Unfortunately I doubt the Zune will fill my desires, not least of all because of AAC compatibility.
My current desire for a portable music player is fairly weak - it is a nice luxury, but I can live without it. However, I do have a scenario in which I would definitely want one: with wifi integrated into the player and Airport Express compatibility. I would use the player as a regular portable device, especially in the car, but when I got home, click click and it connects to my Airport Express network and starts streaming to whichever speakers I select. As I move from room to room I pick up the player and switch airex receivers, and take the player with me - there would be no need for a remote because the player is the remote. Genius!
If only this fantasy player of mine existed. *sigh* (hint, hint, AAPL)
In a related news item, scientists at the University of Adelaide have developed a robotic arm for tossing dwarves - film at eleven.
Cleopatra, Queen of De Nial
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
"There's a fairly robust grey market run by the locals"
A man in denial, right before your eyes: this is not a "grey" market he is describing. "Grey" implies it's not clearly right or wrong. It is a black market, openly selling bootlegged copyrighted material.
Bootlegging of DVDs is very common in the Gulf region. I still have the business card of a guy in Kuwait who sells DVDs door-to-door. I also have a Fargo DVD which I paid full price for at a chain retailer in Riyadh (Rotana? Mega-? The one at al Faisaliah, whatever name it is), which turned out to be a bootleg in fancy packaging. It is not just the "locals"; there are plenty of westerners in the region who stock large libraries of DVDs and supply lists of available titles to anyone interested, promising copies direct from the original on good media - expect to pay an extra buck or two per unit for this top-quality merchandise!
After spending a couple of years working as a graphic designer at a hospital, and being involved in the publication of a medical journal, I have some experience in data presentation and graphics, as well as working with meds/researchers preparing presentations. I find it interesting (but not surprising) in that I didn't see any comments here which mentioned the role of graphic designers in the presentation of data.
Sure, you might be a doctor or scientist or government bigshot, but someone who specialises in visual communication can probably do a much better job at visual communication that you can, and help you do your job better too. The scientific and medical fields are full of narrowly focused specialities - why not consult with a graphics specialist when you are working with graphics?
Many of the graphs and charts which were submitted to me at the hospital for presentations or to the medical journal from doctors and researchers were simply crap. Most submitters would be more than happy with revisions I suggested (I would typically re-do graphics from scratch), but the amount of time they wasted creating their first versions was astounding.
Some people would initially resist changes based solely on the fact that they had put so much time into their graphics. Quite frankly, an average person could (and would) easily spend many hours doing graphics work which I could do with greater clarity and higher quality in minutes. Looking at the lowest common denominator, considering what I am paid (even when working on a freelance basis) compared to what a typical physician earns, means the cost savings of not having doctors/researchers messing with powerpoint or other hack graphics programs are definitely worthwhile.
When physicians came to me while still in the preparatory stages of their work, results were better than most, without so much wasted time. Doing a job right the first time, instead of making a false start, going backwards and re-thinking and re-doing, is a better way to do things, no matter what field of work you are in.
Lots of people make predictions about how the world and its economy will change, but I do recall that even 15-20 years ago predictions were being made in many major media outlets about how fresh water would become a vital, high-value resource in the not-too-distant future.
Desalination is possible, yet requires much energy, creating its own set of problems. Two countries which bear a huge proportion of the world's natural fresh water supplies are Russia and Canada. They could reap the rewards of the predicted rise in value of fresh water. However, the demand for fresh water would not be without consequences.
Some posts here have minimalised the significance of the need for fresh water, suggesting that it is a "renewable resource", but the effects of overuse or mismanagement can be drastic. The effects of irrigation on the Colorado River and the water table in Saudi Arabia, and the effect of water diversion for cities in California are well known, but not isolated. Flooding caused by hydro electric dams in northern Canada had a notable impact on the flow of rivers and the rising water "dissolved" islands and shorelines by melting the permafrost just below the ground's surface.
How much more fresh water can be taken or diverted from the natural system? What are the real, long-term affects of increasing demand on the fresh water system? Ultimately, fresh water comes from rain, and we can't make it rain on demand (yet). Fresh water is only renewable to a degree, and the consequences of its consumption must be considered.
If I had a dollar for every time a large corporation disliked how Consumers Reports tests merchandise, I'd have, uh, some number of dollars.
Time and again it seems like testing based on "real world" scenarios is what upsets the corps the most. The corps are right, too; as if anyone lives in the "real world".
The technical attributes of different technologies can be debated to no end, but never underestimate the propensity for people to embrace "new and shiny". That includes everyone, including you (and me).
"Software designers, game designers, graphic designers, etc., are paid for their labor. They create work-for-hire. Their labor is what puts the paychecks in their pockets."
Their labour creates copyrightable work which has value. Without the existence of copyright law, their work has little or no value. Whether they own the copyright or not, they benefit from the existence and enforcement of copyright law.
"I know that one could argue that without copyright, the corp. wouldn't make money and would layoff the employees. But they could lay off the employees at any time in an "at will" employment system."
Come on; you're treating the backbone of entire industries as an afterthought.
Whether work for hire or otherwise, copyrights mean paycheques. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your post, because your description of how creative industries work is accurate, but you're saying my point is incorrect. Are you implying that work for hire is unethical? If I work (for hire) with a company creating whatchadoodles and the company owns the copyright and can make money selling whatchadoodles because of copyright law and keeps me on the payroll, then I am benefitting from copyright. If I scrub toilets for the company which sells whatchadoodles and I receive a steady paycheque, then I benefit from copyright. There is no splitting hairs here.
Any company in any business can lay off employees at any time, but they don't unless it's in the company's best interest (income vs expenses). Copyright has nothing to do with that.
"They're suing for the Rights Holders, which is a different beast- and they're suing people indescriminately left and right over this BS."
What different beast are you referring to? Rights holders? Do you mean people like me who create work independently, or do you mean the companies I have worked for who have paid me to create work? Those same companies provide income to accountants, janitors and secretaries... so those people were dependent on income derived from copyright and benefit from its protection just as much as I do.
Yes, the RIAA is suing people indiscriminately; that's why I referred to them as being "stupid". However, my quote "Though the RIAA has the right to enforce its copyrights through lawsuits and settlements..." is from the amicus curiae brief we are discussing; the RIAA is well within their rights to pursue damages from anyone engaged in unauthorised distribution of relelvant product. The RIAA is an association of members, and its members (should) be directing its actions. Where the money goes is their business.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of your comment "Who do you think gets to pocket the money from these settlements and lawsuits? The people making the music?" The people making the music are just as much a part of the recording industry as any suit-and-tie executive, and a healthy, profitable entertainment industry is as much in their best interests as any accountant's. It is called showbiz, after all. (biz=business)
First, why do people in the US have to fight for legal fees when they win a lawsuit? When will it become an automatic part of american civil law? Responsibility for all legal fees when a case is lost will certainly put the brakes on the litigious culture of the US and all its frivolous lawsuits.
Second: "Though the RIAA has the right to enforce its copyrights through lawsuits and settlements, it does not have the right to do so against people it knows or reasonably should know are innocent."
The RIAA may be stupid, but that doesn't mean it is entirely wrong, and not all of its lawsuits are misdirected. Copyrights put paycheques in peoples' pockets, including software designers, game designers, graphic designers, and countless others.
In a sense, the RIAA is going to bat for all these people, and that is a double-edged sword. Their idiotic approach to defending copyright has caused at least as much damage as it has prevented. They need feedback from people/industries with a vested interest, feedback other than "RIAA sucks!" or "Music should be free!", and they need to listen to that feedback.
First off, i'd like to take the time to point out that I'm not an Apple apologist or fanboy or freak. I write this comment because I find it ridiculous that so called "journalists" and "writers" can ask such questions as "Quality control problems or growing pains at Apple?" without looking at numbers. This is irresponsible reporting, on the level of internet forum rumour mongering.
Yes, there have been problems. There have always been problems. Any product has problems. Remember the 12" pbook warping? (I'm talking about when they were new, not two years later when some people forgot about it and started reporting the issue again as if it were a new problem.) What about G5 fan whine? Screen probs in a number of pbooks. Mobo probs in iBooks, etc., etc. The real question is "Is the percentage of owners hit with faulty units higher than before?".
The only time actual numbers are mentioned in this article (or any related article I have seen) is "at least three separate accounts of MagSafe connectors melting down in some way... which also seem to be a statistical anomaly among MacBook and MacBook Pro users."
That's a nasty thing to happen to anyone's computer, but come on - three? How many hundreds of thousands of units has Apple shipped in the last year? There's not even any mention of the question of what proportion of owners have had problems. No hint of any curiousity about the topic.
Apple is selling a lot of units to people who have never bought a CPU from this brand before, and they surely have high hopes. Expect the new buyers to make a lot of noise it things don't work out well. We should just be aware of whether one person is making the noise of ten or if it's really ten people. That is how we can tell if Apple products have taken a quality-control nosedive or not.
From the intro: "this article claims that the PC and the TV provide two very different roles that aren't going to converge anytime soon."
From the article: "How come none of my Apple-loving geek buddies have Macs in their living rooms?
The article makes very easy predictions as if they are revelations. If the author had been paying attention to the computer industry he would not have harboured such wasted expectations for so long.
Jobs in 2004: "Well, we've always been very clear on that. We don't think that televisions and personal computers are going to merge. We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.
Well, they want to link sometimes. Like, when you make a movie, you burn a DVD and you take it to your DVD player. Someday that could happen over AirPort, so you don't have to burn a DVD -- you can just watch it right off your computer on your television set. But most of these products that have said, "Let's combine the television and the computer!" have failed. All of them have failed.
The problem is, when you're using your computer you're a foot away from it, you know? When you're using your television you want to be ten feet away from it. So they're really different animals."
"Hezbolla responded to these attacks - as the military (official or otherwise) of any country under attack might - by launching rockets against Israel. Unfortunately, the missiles they have available have limited guidance capability (unlike those of Israel.)"
Official or otherwise? The Israelis have been asking Lebanon to put its military into the south of Lebanon for a long time. Hezbollah was to be disarmed long ago.
So are you suggesting that the Republican party can build its own military and attack Mexico in order to stop illegal immigrants?
How about if the Liberal Democrats in the UK had its own army and launched attacks on Northern Ireland in response to IRA bombings in London?
These are perfectly acceptable by your logic. Who do you suggest is to be trusted with their own military force, and who is not to be trusted? How about corporations? Can they have a military, or is it only "political parties" which have the priviledge of defending their interests?
Hezbollah entered Israel and attacked a convoy, taking hostages, in the name of Lebanon without informing or gaining approval from the Lebanese government. You'll notice that the Lebanese military is not involved in this fight, and in fact Israel would like the Lebanese military to take control of this part of Lebanon. They have been making that very clear for a long time.
"they're a resistance movement trying to oust an occupying force in accordance with international law,"
Really? Perhaps you might like to consider how (with their days numbered no matter what) Hezbollah's recent actions tie in with the string of car bomb attacks through 2005? Isn't it somewhat peculiar that a nation which was largely united in its desire to have Syria and its influence forcibly expelled from Lebanon is now rallying around a Syrian-backed "political party".
You're right about not being short-sighted about these events, but if you want to look at the big picture, then let's look at everything in it.
"Most of the controversy surrounding these technologies has to do with what they mean -- that is, the values they embed -- not how they work."
Take the mobile phone, for instance. When people were imagining mobile phones and how they would work, how much attention was paid to considering how people would really use them?
People driving their cars through traffic while holding a phone to their ear and talking about shopping or going to a party, people sitting in restaurants or other public places speaking loudly into their phones, or mobiles ringing in the middle of discussions, meals,movies or plays, meetings, etc... These circumstances were considered rude or even illegal, and some of these are expected and tolerated now. They have become a normal part of our lives - our values have changed because of the technology.
This guy is talking about looking at that aspect of new technology, changing how we think of its potential. When Buck Rogers movies showed a visual communicator thingy that worked like a tv, who would have thought that when television was invented people would sit in front of it for hours on end as if they were hypnotised?
Perhaps by expanding on how we think of the potential of technology, then we can develop better technologies that really lead to people living better lives.
I would like to add my voice to that of the original poster. Brightmail is remarkably good at eliminating spam, and I do not know of any false positives in the years I have used it. (and yes, I have the habit of doing a quick eyeball scan of my spam folder before dumping it)
Wow - that's a heck of a lesson learned! The next time I vandalise articles on Wikipedia I will certainly be more carefull than Colbert and not announce it on an international television broadcast - thanks Steve!
"You know, you have a turn of phrase every so often that I know you know is intentional... I know that you know exactly what I mean... By your definition any music that doesn't use a classical symphony orchestra is indistinguishable one from the other... All music using drums and base IS THE SAME -- (no matter how wildly different it really is, but hey, it's your view of things) and "at the end of the day" since it's "all the same" it can't be good. Your girlfriend was "enthralled" by something you viewed from a distance with distaste"
It's unfortunate that you choose to make a discussion an attack on a person, especially when you have no idea who that person is or the contents of their music collection and bookshelf. I supposed I have been drawn in by a "flame". (and I don't mean a beau or heart-throb)
"to condemn entire genres, indeed, entire art forms"
I condemned the genre's name, a word which means "The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy", when that genre has become uncreative and choked with preconceived characters and scenarios. I suggested they start using a different word or phrase for this genre. The genre is not without merits, but it is not creative. Lots of staid, predictable things in life retain some merit.
You seem prone to making broad assumptions based on things which aren't said. What if you read my post this way: I said I played Diablo, Dungeon Seige, even DnD... if I hated the genre so much, why would I waste my money on the software/books, and why would I waste my leisure time on them? If you took the time to look at things from a different point of view, perhaps there were different assumptions you could have drawn from my words.
Speaking of the meaning of words, since when is "enthralled" a negative, contemptuous word?
"All music using drums and base IS THE SAME -- (no matter how wildly different it really is, but hey, it's your view of things)"
My view of things is that someone who is deeply immersed in something (such as a genre) can become so focused that they see broad differentiation where the average or casual observer sees only relatively minor variations. Sometimes people focused like that are unable to pull back to see the forest because they are paying such close attention to the differences in conifers. Producing minor variations is not being creative. Being aware of the big picture (and any flaws it exposes) does not mean being unable to appreciate the minor variations and sub-species, er, sub-genres. Yes, Black Sabbath and Nirvana produce very different songs, but in the big picture, they are the same: guitar, bass, drums, distortion pedal, and undeniably mediocre vocal performances. (btw, Geezer Butler certainly smacks his bass, and if you have ever seen Bill Ward or Dave Grohl drum, it is obvious they are bashers - jeez, Grohl beat the living daylights out of my friend's drum kit and completely wrecked a new set of skins in less than an hour, back around 1989-90).
"Your method of plucking out a bit of similarity here and there... I'm not familiar with the "Warhammer".jpg you linked"
The jpg came from the article, for pete's sake. If you look at the photos I think it is indisputable that the similarities are remarkable. The WoW link was only two clicks deep. I mentioned before I didn't have to make any effort to find these similarities. This stuff is upfront, common genre content. I'm not plucking anything - a point I was trying to make was that the dwarf thing is just one example of the broad similarities within the genre; there are countless others, indeed including plots. Yes, minute similarities can be found between two of any piece of fiction, but that is not my point.
"Diablo isn't WoW isn't FFXI and so forth -- they aren't at all similar; your comment that fantasy constitutes nothing more than "Olde Tyme Wizard's Worlde" is incorrect at best, slightly flamish at worst.
In what way do you find the aforementioned dissimiliar games "terribly predictable"? These games are very different one from the other, and hardly fit the "Ye Olde Wizarde" paradigm."
I have played Diablo, never Wow or FFXI. I have played Dungeon Seige. Admittedly, I got bored with both Diablo and Dungeon Seige and never completed them. I played DnD as a child and I'm familiar with Tolkien. A girlfriend years ago was enthralled by fantasy fiction and I read a bit of her collection. I'm sure I've been exposed to Fantasy work on other occasions.
To someone who is a fan with broad exposure, there is surely a huge difference between the different games, books, movies, etc. To someone who is a passive fan or less, the differences are not so apparent. The same goes for anything; hockey teams, NASCAR drivers, speaker cable, techno music: some kid's mom might not be able to tell the difference between Black Sabbath and Nirvana, while maybe the kid thinks they are polar opposites of each other - Kurt Cobain and Tony Iommi the same? That's crazy-talk mom! At the end of the day, both bands bash drums, smack a bass, turn up the fuzzy guitar and moan about their problems.
Yes, the Fantasy Worlde contains a lot of product I have never experienced, but the samples I have indulged in or just glanced at have been very similar. If my memory serves me well, Diablo has some sort of walking skeleton/zombie hordes. Guess what: so does Dungeon Seige. If I dug out my olde DnD book I suspect there might be something similar in there. Dragons, taverns with ale in steins, pointy armoured hats with horns, thatched roofed houses... yes there are dissimilar elements in every product, but there are broad similarities for the casual fan or casual observer.
Take the pointy hat guy for example. I would say that guy and Gimli from LoTR are the same and predictable. Gee, look: WoW hassimilar stuff. Maybe others would call me crazy and point out the scores of differences - ooo, one uses a hammer and the other uses an axe... but come on; they're all short, stocky, there's lots of facial hair with braids even... predictable. I'm not even trying: this stuff is falling in my lap.
"If you feel that you have an idea for a great scifi game that will *also* be attractive to tens of millions - or even several million - people, you'll get an eager reception by a gaming company; that is, if you can create the game and make it both workable and appealing."
This is the fallacy which those refuting criticism of something they favour sometimes fall back on, the "if you don't like it, then why don't you do better?" thing. I'm not a game designer. It's not my job to design games. I can't cook, but that doesn't mean I can't say a restaurant serves crappy food. I can't kick a ball, but I have opinions about how England played in the World Cup. Where is the sense in expecting me to start working out with the squad just so I can earn the right to say they stank? That's ludicrous.
It's no different when I say Fantasy genre product is uncreative and hardly based in fantasy at all.
"For the large corporations creating the games, it comes down to market research and dollars. Don't think for a minute that they would hesitate to spend millions upon millions to craft new ideas if their research indicated that those ideas would be viable and make them money."
Slashdot Mirror
Incidences of having to endlessly go through trial and error has nothing to do with solving puzzles. I am all for having puzzles in games, but there should also be some flexibility at times.
Having a solution with no clues how to find it is not a puzzle, it's an exercise in frustration.
An example is the ridiculous training parachute drop in the America's Army game; without completing the training, the game was restricted. Completing this training involved a squence of looking one way, looking another, doing this and that which was really not at all logical or indicated in the preliminary training, and a lot of people (including myself) had trouble with this.
Sometimes I believe that some game developers do not consider that people will derive more enjoyment from games if they have a sense of reward and accomplishment from solving a puzzle, rather than a sense of relief that a ponderous chore has finally been completed. If too many games have too many dreary chores to complete, then where is the fun in gaming?
I have held out a long time hoping a wifi iPod would be introduced. Unfortunately I doubt the Zune will fill my desires, not least of all because of AAC compatibility.
My current desire for a portable music player is fairly weak - it is a nice luxury, but I can live without it. However, I do have a scenario in which I would definitely want one: with wifi integrated into the player and Airport Express compatibility. I would use the player as a regular portable device, especially in the car, but when I got home, click click and it connects to my Airport Express network and starts streaming to whichever speakers I select. As I move from room to room I pick up the player and switch airex receivers, and take the player with me - there would be no need for a remote because the player is the remote. Genius!
If only this fantasy player of mine existed. *sigh* (hint, hint, AAPL)
In a related news item, scientists at the University of Adelaide have developed a robotic arm for tossing dwarves - film at eleven.
"There's a fairly robust grey market run by the locals"
A man in denial, right before your eyes: this is not a "grey" market he is describing. "Grey" implies it's not clearly right or wrong. It is a black market, openly selling bootlegged copyrighted material.
Bootlegging of DVDs is very common in the Gulf region. I still have the business card of a guy in Kuwait who sells DVDs door-to-door. I also have a Fargo DVD which I paid full price for at a chain retailer in Riyadh (Rotana? Mega-? The one at al Faisaliah, whatever name it is), which turned out to be a bootleg in fancy packaging. It is not just the "locals"; there are plenty of westerners in the region who stock large libraries of DVDs and supply lists of available titles to anyone interested, promising copies direct from the original on good media - expect to pay an extra buck or two per unit for this top-quality merchandise!
After spending a couple of years working as a graphic designer at a hospital, and being involved in the publication of a medical journal, I have some experience in data presentation and graphics, as well as working with meds/researchers preparing presentations. I find it interesting (but not surprising) in that I didn't see any comments here which mentioned the role of graphic designers in the presentation of data.
Sure, you might be a doctor or scientist or government bigshot, but someone who specialises in visual communication can probably do a much better job at visual communication that you can, and help you do your job better too. The scientific and medical fields are full of narrowly focused specialities - why not consult with a graphics specialist when you are working with graphics?
Many of the graphs and charts which were submitted to me at the hospital for presentations or to the medical journal from doctors and researchers were simply crap. Most submitters would be more than happy with revisions I suggested (I would typically re-do graphics from scratch), but the amount of time they wasted creating their first versions was astounding.
Some people would initially resist changes based solely on the fact that they had put so much time into their graphics. Quite frankly, an average person could (and would) easily spend many hours doing graphics work which I could do with greater clarity and higher quality in minutes. Looking at the lowest common denominator, considering what I am paid (even when working on a freelance basis) compared to what a typical physician earns, means the cost savings of not having doctors/researchers messing with powerpoint or other hack graphics programs are definitely worthwhile.
When physicians came to me while still in the preparatory stages of their work, results were better than most, without so much wasted time. Doing a job right the first time, instead of making a false start, going backwards and re-thinking and re-doing, is a better way to do things, no matter what field of work you are in.
Lots of people make predictions about how the world and its economy will change, but I do recall that even 15-20 years ago predictions were being made in many major media outlets about how fresh water would become a vital, high-value resource in the not-too-distant future.
Desalination is possible, yet requires much energy, creating its own set of problems. Two countries which bear a huge proportion of the world's natural fresh water supplies are Russia and Canada. They could reap the rewards of the predicted rise in value of fresh water. However, the demand for fresh water would not be without consequences.
Some posts here have minimalised the significance of the need for fresh water, suggesting that it is a "renewable resource", but the effects of overuse or mismanagement can be drastic. The effects of irrigation on the Colorado River and the water table in Saudi Arabia, and the effect of water diversion for cities in California are well known, but not isolated. Flooding caused by hydro electric dams in northern Canada had a notable impact on the flow of rivers and the rising water "dissolved" islands and shorelines by melting the permafrost just below the ground's surface.
How much more fresh water can be taken or diverted from the natural system? What are the real, long-term affects of increasing demand on the fresh water system? Ultimately, fresh water comes from rain, and we can't make it rain on demand (yet). Fresh water is only renewable to a degree, and the consequences of its consumption must be considered.
"But I never smack the monitor. What good will that do?"
It will do good if your monitor happens to be going flakey.
If I had a dollar for every time a large corporation disliked how Consumers Reports tests merchandise, I'd have, uh, some number of dollars.
Time and again it seems like testing based on "real world" scenarios is what upsets the corps the most. The corps are right, too; as if anyone lives in the "real world".
CAPSLOCK WAR IS HELL!!!
42: the number of comments on this Dell product recall /. page which will be entirely about Apple.
The technical attributes of different technologies can be debated to no end, but never underestimate the propensity for people to embrace "new and shiny". That includes everyone, including you (and me).
"Software designers, game designers, graphic designers, etc., are paid for their labor. They create work-for-hire. Their labor is what puts the paychecks in their pockets."
Their labour creates copyrightable work which has value. Without the existence of copyright law, their work has little or no value. Whether they own the copyright or not, they benefit from the existence and enforcement of copyright law.
"I know that one could argue that without copyright, the corp. wouldn't make money and would layoff the employees. But they could lay off the employees at any time in an "at will" employment system."
Come on; you're treating the backbone of entire industries as an afterthought.
Whether work for hire or otherwise, copyrights mean paycheques. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your post, because your description of how creative industries work is accurate, but you're saying my point is incorrect. Are you implying that work for hire is unethical? If I work (for hire) with a company creating whatchadoodles and the company owns the copyright and can make money selling whatchadoodles because of copyright law and keeps me on the payroll, then I am benefitting from copyright. If I scrub toilets for the company which sells whatchadoodles and I receive a steady paycheque, then I benefit from copyright. There is no splitting hairs here.
Any company in any business can lay off employees at any time, but they don't unless it's in the company's best interest (income vs expenses). Copyright has nothing to do with that.
"They're suing for the Rights Holders, which is a different beast- and they're suing people indescriminately
left and right over this BS."
What different beast are you referring to? Rights holders? Do you mean people like me who create work independently, or do you mean the companies I have worked for who have paid me to create work? Those same companies provide income to accountants, janitors and secretaries... so those people were dependent on income derived from copyright and benefit from its protection just as much as I do.
Yes, the RIAA is suing people indiscriminately; that's why I referred to them as being "stupid". However, my quote "Though the RIAA has the right to enforce its copyrights through lawsuits and settlements..." is from the amicus curiae brief we are discussing; the RIAA is well within their rights to pursue damages from anyone engaged in unauthorised distribution of relelvant product. The RIAA is an association of members, and its members (should) be directing its actions. Where the money goes is their business.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of your comment "Who do you think gets to pocket the money from these settlements and lawsuits? The people making the music?" The people making the music are just as much a part of the recording industry as any suit-and-tie executive, and a healthy, profitable entertainment industry is as much in their best interests as any accountant's. It is called showbiz, after all. (biz=business)
First, why do people in the US have to fight for legal fees when they win a lawsuit? When will it become an automatic part of american civil law? Responsibility for all legal fees when a case is lost will certainly put the brakes on the litigious culture of the US and all its frivolous lawsuits.
Second: "Though the RIAA has the right to enforce its copyrights through lawsuits and settlements, it does not have the right to do so against people it knows or reasonably should know are innocent."
The RIAA may be stupid, but that doesn't mean it is entirely wrong, and not all of its lawsuits are misdirected. Copyrights put paycheques in peoples' pockets, including software designers, game designers, graphic designers, and countless others.
In a sense, the RIAA is going to bat for all these people, and that is a double-edged sword. Their idiotic approach to defending copyright has caused at least as much damage as it has prevented. They need feedback from people/industries with a vested interest, feedback other than "RIAA sucks!" or "Music should be free!", and they need to listen to that feedback.
First off, i'd like to take the time to point out that I'm not an Apple apologist or fanboy or freak. I write this comment because I find it ridiculous that so called "journalists" and "writers" can ask such questions as "Quality control problems or growing pains at Apple?" without looking at numbers. This is irresponsible reporting, on the level of internet forum rumour mongering.
Yes, there have been problems. There have always been problems. Any product has problems. Remember the 12" pbook warping? (I'm talking about when they were new, not two years later when some people forgot about it and started reporting the issue again as if it were a new problem.) What about G5 fan whine? Screen probs in a number of pbooks. Mobo probs in iBooks, etc., etc. The real question is "Is the percentage of owners hit with faulty units higher than before?".
The only time actual numbers are mentioned in this article (or any related article I have seen) is "at least three separate accounts of MagSafe connectors melting down in some way... which also seem to be a statistical anomaly among MacBook and MacBook Pro users."
That's a nasty thing to happen to anyone's computer, but come on - three? How many hundreds of thousands of units has Apple shipped in the last year? There's not even any mention of the question of what proportion of owners have had problems. No hint of any curiousity about the topic.
Apple is selling a lot of units to people who have never bought a CPU from this brand before, and they surely have high hopes. Expect the new buyers to make a lot of noise it things don't work out well. We should just be aware of whether one person is making the noise of ten or if it's really ten people. That is how we can tell if Apple products have taken a quality-control nosedive or not.
From the intro: "this article claims that the PC and the TV provide two very different roles that aren't going to converge anytime soon."
From the article: "How come none of my Apple-loving geek buddies have Macs in their living rooms?
The article makes very easy predictions as if they are revelations. If the author had been paying attention to the computer industry he would not have harboured such wasted expectations for so long.
A year and a half ago Jobs was very clear about his intentions.
Jobs in 2004: "Well, we've always been very clear on that. We don't think that televisions and personal computers are going to merge. We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.
Well, they want to link sometimes. Like, when you make a movie, you burn a DVD and you take it to your DVD player. Someday that could happen over AirPort, so you don't have to burn a DVD -- you can just watch it right off your computer on your television set. But most of these products that have said, "Let's combine the television and the computer!" have failed. All of them have failed.
The problem is, when you're using your computer you're a foot away from it, you know? When you're using your television you want to be ten feet away from it. So they're really different animals."
I used the same reference in a recent post predicting the unifying element between tv and computer will be a video Airport Express, not an Apple livingroom computer, in response to a previous slashdot article suggesting forthcoming iTunes movie rentals.
"Hezbolla responded to these attacks - as the military (official or otherwise) of any country under attack might - by launching rockets against Israel. Unfortunately, the missiles they have available have limited guidance capability (unlike those of Israel.)"
Official or otherwise? The Israelis have been asking Lebanon to put its military into the south of Lebanon for a long time. Hezbollah was to be disarmed long ago.
So are you suggesting that the Republican party can build its own military and attack Mexico in order to stop illegal immigrants?
How about if the Liberal Democrats in the UK had its own army and launched attacks on Northern Ireland in response to IRA bombings in London?
These are perfectly acceptable by your logic. Who do you suggest is to be trusted with their own military force, and who is not to be trusted? How about corporations? Can they have a military, or is it only "political parties" which have the priviledge of defending their interests?
Hezbollah entered Israel and attacked a convoy, taking hostages, in the name of Lebanon without informing or gaining approval from the Lebanese government. You'll notice that the Lebanese military is not involved in this fight, and in fact Israel would like the Lebanese military to take control of this part of Lebanon. They have been making that very clear for a long time.
"they're a resistance movement trying to oust an occupying force in accordance with international law,"
Really? Perhaps you might like to consider how (with their days numbered no matter what) Hezbollah's recent actions tie in with the string of car bomb attacks through 2005? Isn't it somewhat peculiar that a nation which was largely united in its desire to have Syria and its influence forcibly expelled from Lebanon is now rallying around a Syrian-backed "political party".
You're right about not being short-sighted about these events, but if you want to look at the big picture, then let's look at everything in it.
"Most of the controversy surrounding these technologies has to do with what they mean -- that is, the values they embed -- not how they work."
Take the mobile phone, for instance. When people were imagining mobile phones and how they would work, how much attention was paid to considering how people would really use them?
People driving their cars through traffic while holding a phone to their ear and talking about shopping or going to a party, people sitting in restaurants or other public places speaking loudly into their phones, or mobiles ringing in the middle of discussions, meals,movies or plays, meetings, etc... These circumstances were considered rude or even illegal, and some of these are expected and tolerated now. They have become a normal part of our lives - our values have changed because of the technology.
This guy is talking about looking at that aspect of new technology, changing how we think of its potential. When Buck Rogers movies showed a visual communicator thingy that worked like a tv, who would have thought that when television was invented people would sit in front of it for hours on end as if they were hypnotised?
Perhaps by expanding on how we think of the potential of technology, then we can develop better technologies that really lead to people living better lives.
Yes! ...I mean, No!
uh... wait, wait... Yes, ummm, errr... or No
well, uh... maybe.
I would like to add my voice to that of the original poster. Brightmail is remarkably good at eliminating spam, and I do not know of any false positives in the years I have used it. (and yes, I have the habit of doing a quick eyeball scan of my spam folder before dumping it)
Wow - that's a heck of a lesson learned! The next time I vandalise articles on Wikipedia I will certainly be more carefull than Colbert and not announce it on an international television broadcast - thanks Steve!
Jetpacks are sooo old. Where are the rocket boots?
"I'm the only guy crazy enough to do this, because I'm not allowed to turn a profit."
Crazy? I don't think so. It is well known that even if you make a successful movie, you don't make a movie to make a profit.
"You know, you have a turn of phrase every so often that I know you know is intentional... I know that you know exactly what I mean... By your definition any music that doesn't use a classical symphony orchestra is indistinguishable one from the other... All music using drums and base IS THE SAME -- (no matter how wildly different it really is, but hey, it's your view of things) and "at the end of the day" since it's "all the same" it can't be good. Your girlfriend was "enthralled" by something you viewed from a distance with distaste"
.jpg you linked"
It's unfortunate that you choose to make a discussion an attack on a person, especially when you have no idea who that person is or the contents of their music collection and bookshelf. I supposed I have been drawn in by a "flame". (and I don't mean a beau or heart-throb)
"to condemn entire genres, indeed, entire art forms"
I condemned the genre's name, a word which means "The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy", when that genre has become uncreative and choked with preconceived characters and scenarios. I suggested they start using a different word or phrase for this genre. The genre is not without merits, but it is not creative. Lots of staid, predictable things in life retain some merit.
You seem prone to making broad assumptions based on things which aren't said. What if you read my post this way: I said I played Diablo, Dungeon Seige, even DnD... if I hated the genre so much, why would I waste my money on the software/books, and why would I waste my leisure time on them? If you took the time to look at things from a different point of view, perhaps there were different assumptions you could have drawn from my words.
Speaking of the meaning of words, since when is "enthralled" a negative, contemptuous word?
"All music using drums and base IS THE SAME -- (no matter how wildly different it really is, but hey, it's your view of things)"
My view of things is that someone who is deeply immersed in something (such as a genre) can become so focused that they see broad differentiation where the average or casual observer sees only relatively minor variations. Sometimes people focused like that are unable to pull back to see the forest because they are paying such close attention to the differences in conifers. Producing minor variations is not being creative. Being aware of the big picture (and any flaws it exposes) does not mean being unable to appreciate the minor variations and sub-species, er, sub-genres. Yes, Black Sabbath and Nirvana produce very different songs, but in the big picture, they are the same: guitar, bass, drums, distortion pedal, and undeniably mediocre vocal performances. (btw, Geezer Butler certainly smacks his bass, and if you have ever seen Bill Ward or Dave Grohl drum, it is obvious they are bashers - jeez, Grohl beat the living daylights out of my friend's drum kit and completely wrecked a new set of skins in less than an hour, back around 1989-90).
"Your method of plucking out a bit of similarity here and there... I'm not familiar with the "Warhammer"
The jpg came from the article, for pete's sake. If you look at the photos I think it is indisputable that the similarities are remarkable. The WoW link was only two clicks deep. I mentioned before I didn't have to make any effort to find these similarities. This stuff is upfront, common genre content. I'm not plucking anything - a point I was trying to make was that the dwarf thing is just one example of the broad similarities within the genre; there are countless others, indeed including plots. Yes, minute similarities can be found between two of any piece of fiction, but that is not my point.
"Diablo isn't WoW isn't FFXI and so forth -- they aren't at all similar; your comment that fantasy constitutes nothing more than "Olde Tyme Wizard's Worlde" is incorrect at best, slightly flamish at worst.
In what way do you find the aforementioned dissimiliar games "terribly predictable"? These games are very different one from the other, and hardly fit the "Ye Olde Wizarde" paradigm."
I have played Diablo, never Wow or FFXI. I have played Dungeon Seige. Admittedly, I got bored with both Diablo and Dungeon Seige and never completed them. I played DnD as a child and I'm familiar with Tolkien. A girlfriend years ago was enthralled by fantasy fiction and I read a bit of her collection. I'm sure I've been exposed to Fantasy work on other occasions.
To someone who is a fan with broad exposure, there is surely a huge difference between the different games, books, movies, etc. To someone who is a passive fan or less, the differences are not so apparent. The same goes for anything; hockey teams, NASCAR drivers, speaker cable, techno music: some kid's mom might not be able to tell the difference between Black Sabbath and Nirvana, while maybe the kid thinks they are polar opposites of each other - Kurt Cobain and Tony Iommi the same? That's crazy-talk mom! At the end of the day, both bands bash drums, smack a bass, turn up the fuzzy guitar and moan about their problems.
Yes, the Fantasy Worlde contains a lot of product I have never experienced, but the samples I have indulged in or just glanced at have been very similar. If my memory serves me well, Diablo has some sort of walking skeleton/zombie hordes. Guess what: so does Dungeon Seige. If I dug out my olde DnD book I suspect there might be something similar in there. Dragons, taverns with ale in steins, pointy armoured hats with horns, thatched roofed houses... yes there are dissimilar elements in every product, but there are broad similarities for the casual fan or casual observer.
Take the pointy hat guy for example. I would say that guy and Gimli from LoTR are the same and predictable. Gee, look: WoW has similar stuff. Maybe others would call me crazy and point out the scores of differences - ooo, one uses a hammer and the other uses an axe... but come on; they're all short, stocky, there's lots of facial hair with braids even... predictable. I'm not even trying: this stuff is falling in my lap.
"If you feel that you have an idea for a great scifi game that will *also* be attractive to tens of millions - or even several million - people, you'll get an eager reception by a gaming company; that is, if you can create the game and make it both workable and appealing."
This is the fallacy which those refuting criticism of something they favour sometimes fall back on, the "if you don't like it, then why don't you do better?" thing. I'm not a game designer. It's not my job to design games. I can't cook, but that doesn't mean I can't say a restaurant serves crappy food. I can't kick a ball, but I have opinions about how England played in the World Cup. Where is the sense in expecting me to start working out with the squad just so I can earn the right to say they stank? That's ludicrous.
It's no different when I say Fantasy genre product is uncreative and hardly based in fantasy at all.
"For the large corporations creating the games, it comes down to market research and dollars. Don't think for a minute that they would hesitate to spend millions upon millions to craft new ideas if their research indicated that those ideas would be viable and make them money."
First of all, are you agreeing with me or disagre