"Here you have to PAY to be on the do-not-call list, which, to me at least, sucks...So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks! "
I think what you're probably paying for is the resources needed to maintain that list. Not sure about where you live, but here in Oregon we can't even keep our schools open. Paying $5 or so (Oregon's cost, not sure what yours is...) doesn't seem like a big deal.
As for having to block them, I see what you're saying but they're rebuttal would be "we make money to keep your costs low." The truth is somewhere in between.
Now you know why I keep my primary communication on the internet. Everybody I know has e-mail, and the vast majority of them are on IM of some sort. I realize that's not going to be a choice for everybody, but it does cut down on the phone traffic.
Since I've cut down on the phone traffic, I only have a cell phone. That means I get caller ID, and a notification when I get voice mail. I don't even jump to get to my phone anymore. It's on silent. When it rings, I read the caller ID and make a choice whether or not to let it go to voice mail. I get around to it eventually. That alone makes telemarketing hard to get through.
Back in the olden days, the phone was something you just had to get to while it was ringing. If you take a more convenient approach like I have, telemarketers aren't so annoying.
"Some people, like me, would say that Farscape is a higher priority than Futurama."
I doubt it. Arguably, Farscape is a much more acquired taste than Futurama. It also is not on Fox's Sunday night lineup.
"Seems to me that if all the sets have been destroyed, there's little hope of bringing the show back..."
Hmm. Maybe. Remember the Back to the Future Trilogy? They rebuilt the sets for each movie and nobody could really tell the difference. They could rebuild just fine. They'd even be able to make up a creative reason for changes they couldn't recreate.
Thinking a little more about what you said, it occurs to me that the cost of rebuilding those sets could potentially drive the show into the red. Yeah... I see your point. The good news is that the sets can be rebuilt, the bad news is that they're budget driven and that could be a devastating blow.
Ouch.
Good thing Futurama's animated and doesn't have any sets.;)
" I'm looking at alternative methods, such as making the "out-of-service" tone on my answering machine. "
I did that once. Not only did I stop getting tele-marketing calls, I stopped getting calls from my friends too. Evidentally, just telling them that the sound is fake isn't enough.
"Define what a "Crappy color screen" is. The Atari Lynx and Sega Game gear were both minature 8-bit systems able to only display a certain amount of colors on screen. "
I'm a little surprised that you think I'm referring to the number of colors on the display. I'm talking about the screen itself. The Lynx and the GameGear had blurry, low-brightness, un-evenly lit screens. Their only redeeming factor was that they had color.
The Nomad had a wonderful screen. I forgot about it. It wasn't something you could put in your pocket, though.
And for the record, I've had *all* the machines mentioned in this and my previous post. I used to be quite the portable gaming enthusiast.
"So will the principled slashdotters put their money with their mouths are and not buy a PS3?"
That's not the righit way to approach it.
a.) Sony bears the brunt of the 'boycott'. They've already paid for the Rambus chips. They're not going to suddenly reengineer their hardware, so at best the results would happen 3-7 years later when it comes to making a new console.
b.) Would you be willing to blow up your own house to thwart a burgalar? Consider this: The economy is bad. All it takes is for a little bad news and money starts moving around to various markets. If Sony's not aware of the boycott, then it's the game market you're hurting. Game companies will scale back and work on more 'tried and true' game play. (read: Quake, Street Fighter, and Kart wannabes)
I don't like Sony or Rambus, but a boycott aimed at Rambus through Sony would do more harm than good.
"Otherwise, for $90 ($100 after taxes, etc), it looks like a nice evolution for the GBA..."
NO! You are 100% completely wrong!! Stop spreading FUD!!! I live in Oregon, we have no sales tax, so it'll be $90! GEEZ!
There, I proved somebody wrong, mod me up.
(Disclaimer: The previous was my impression of a good deal of responses I see on Slashdot. It's meant as a joke, laugh.)
Re:When will Nintendo catch up with the 90's?
on
New Gameboy Announced
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"When will Nintendo realize that people want a backlit, colour LCD display."
What people want is a small game system that runs for hours on a couple of batteries with plenty of games. Backlit color LCD displays are only a consideration when the first goals are met.
Game Gear: Crappy color screen. Decent library. Not very portable and 6 AA's got you 3 hours of game play. System failed.
Atari Lynx: Crappy color screen. Not much in terms of games. Not very portable and 6 AA's got you a whopping 3 hours of game play. System failed.
Turbo Express: Best color screen ever on a portable. Good library of games. TV Tuner. High price. 6 AA's got you a whopping 3 hours of game play. System failed.
Neo Geo Pocket... Dare I continue?
Nintendo, the only company that has been successful with two portable systems is unaware of what people want?
"It look to me that these are designed for adults. It looks a lot slimmer and inconspicuous. Could this mean Nintendo is moving toward a more adult audience?"
Yes for the same reason that pink GBA's mean that Nintendo is focusing on female players.
Are you saying that some/most of the content was free, but the higher demand stuff cost more?
Assuming I understand properly, that's an interesting systemt. Give the content away for free for a bit and then when it reaches certain demand charge for it.
Not a bad idea really. It gives people time to look around and evaluate. They get plenty of fresh content, but the really good stuff (determined by how often it's downloaded) earns the $$$.
I could grow to really like that system. It gives the upstarts a fair chance.
"It's already hard enough to make a living using your programming skills. Imagine how difficult it's going to be like to get a job with "Video Game College" on your resume."
Why would that make it more difficult?
I *almost* went into programming but decided to go into 3D art instead. Boy am I glad I did. As an artist your calling card is the animation/artwork you do. I have no idea how I'd distinguish myself as a programmer.
"Game testing isn't really the fun-filled job you'd think it would be. You sit there and do one part over and over again. Or you die on purpose. You aren't paid to play the game, your paid to do very specefic things in specefic parts of the game. You're hunting for bugs, not playing for kicks. Just warning you."
I remember one guy saying that he had to test every single play in a football game to make sure that it's consistent with what the interface shows you. Can you imagine that? It'd be as tedious as spell checking a/. article.
"1) If I offer something and charge for it, chances are that someone else is offering something similar for free. To justify the charge, I'd have to offer the better content, filtered of junk and perhaps ad-free as well."
You're forgetting a step here: Providing a better service. I'd rather pay $5 for a Divx movie and get it within 2-4 hours than wait 24+hours to maybe get it from P2P. Free is not necessarily the deciding factor.
Anyway, that's just a nitpick, it's not intended as a devastating blow to your argument.
"There may not be many sites worth subscribing to, but there is a wealth of content on the Internet, for almost every purpose imaginable, worth spending a small amount on once ($0.10 - $0.50) to obtain."
Hrmm. This comment struck me but I'm not sure how to respond without over-generalizing. Part of the lure of the internet is that the info is available. I personally think that the value of the content isn't the biggest question in people's minds, it's the service. The problem is that there are far too many places around to get info, so subscribing to any one place in particular feels like you're putting all your eggs in one basket.
That's why I feel that micropayments isn't necessarily the solution, especially in light of the $50 we all spend to get connected in the first place. I think these sites are better off providing upsells. "Give us a $5 donation and we'll add you to our mailing list where our stories are pushed into your inbox."
These sites need to provide unique/interesting services if they want to make money.
"People are unlikely to share videos because they don't want to admit to the world that they are into it."
It used to be taboo a few years ago, but today that's not an issue anymore. It's become generally accepted that everybody has browsed porn on the web at one point or another, whether it be intentional or not. Heck, I remember suggesting to my dad that we trade bookmarks once. Heh my step-mom didn't like that convo at all.
I don't think the sharing of videos is much of an issue here. The fact of the matter is that with the bandwidth caps in place, it isn't worth sharing videos if they provide them at a decent price. I'd *happily* buy episodes of Deep Space Nine if I could download them from a server that's reliable. The only reason I have to search for content shared by individuals today is that I have no other way to obtain it. That's why the Mystery Science Theater 3000 Digital Archive Project is up and running w/o legal troubles. The show was cancelled and is not in reruns. (At least not the first 6 seasons) Only a handful of them are available on VHS/DVD, so what do we do? Let it die?
Give me the ability to buy these on a per-episode basis and you'll make money. I won't care of it's available to be shared.
"Sites don't want to charge a reasonable fee and people think their ISP bill is an all access pass to the Internet. The idea of actually paying for products they use and paying more than the product was produced for is suddenly lost when they go online."
Um no, the problem is not that people don't want to pay for products. The problem is that there's little to no value in most content on the web to pay for. Let me put that in even simpler terms: The web has virtually no content that's worth paying for. It has nothing to do with the idea that everything on the net is free.
Don't believe me? Then explain to me how porn is able to thrive? Porn is delivered for free in generous servings, yet people still whip their credit cards out and buy stuff. Why? Because the net provides what they want. Imagery/Video + the privacy of their own home.
I'm shocked that the MPAA/Broadcast hasn't looked at how successful porn has been on the web and not realized the potential earnings they could make with their content. If they sold copies of TV shows using DivX.AVI's for a reasonable price, they'd find themselves making quick/easy cash.
Anyway, my point is simply that the demand is there, it's the supply that's missing. It's not the other way around like the author is suggesting.
"it's not paranoia.... Remove their name. Ruin every cent they've spent on advertising by changing their name. It's nothing short of corporate terrorism."
1.) Um no, changing their name will not 'ruin every cent spent on advertising'. As a matter of fact, it's probably the best thing that ever happened to them because now everybody'll wonder what the stink is about and find out who Lindows is. MS knows they could have done more damage to them by just ignoring them rather than 'seeing them as a threat'. The problem is they have to defend their trademark. They are legally obligated to, end of story. P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A
2.) Let's talk about 'corporate terrorism'. Lindows was intentionally named to sound like Windows. There are two possibilities here. Either they, as a company, are completely and utterly stupid or they intentionally picked a fight that MS would have to battle them over. That is corporate terrorism. Any time when you intentionally try to confuse the marketplace, you are guilty of that.
I'm no fan of MS, but the Lindows case is hardly an example of MS doing anything wrong. Frankly, if I were a stockholder in the corp that makes Lindows, I'd be mad as hell that they picked that name. Fucking retards.
"not competitor; ENEMY. MS has targeted Lindows for eradication. This equals corporate warfare."
Yeah, they're trying to eradicate them by having them change their name to something that doesn't sound so much like Windows. What other paranoid propoganda are you going to push?
Slashdot Mirror
"But that's the problem, you live in Oregon, and since nobody in Oregon will be selling these..."
That might be funny if Oregon was known for not selling stuff.
"Here you have to PAY to be on the do-not-call list, which, to me at least, sucks...So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks! "
I think what you're probably paying for is the resources needed to maintain that list. Not sure about where you live, but here in Oregon we can't even keep our schools open. Paying $5 or so (Oregon's cost, not sure what yours is...) doesn't seem like a big deal.
As for having to block them, I see what you're saying but they're rebuttal would be "we make money to keep your costs low." The truth is somewhere in between.
Now you know why I keep my primary communication on the internet. Everybody I know has e-mail, and the vast majority of them are on IM of some sort. I realize that's not going to be a choice for everybody, but it does cut down on the phone traffic.
Since I've cut down on the phone traffic, I only have a cell phone. That means I get caller ID, and a notification when I get voice mail. I don't even jump to get to my phone anymore. It's on silent. When it rings, I read the caller ID and make a choice whether or not to let it go to voice mail. I get around to it eventually. That alone makes telemarketing hard to get through.
Back in the olden days, the phone was something you just had to get to while it was ringing. If you take a more convenient approach like I have, telemarketers aren't so annoying.
"Some people, like me, would say that Farscape is a higher priority than Futurama."
;)
I doubt it. Arguably, Farscape is a much more acquired taste than Futurama. It also is not on Fox's Sunday night lineup.
"Seems to me that if all the sets have been destroyed, there's little hope of bringing the show back..."
Hmm. Maybe. Remember the Back to the Future Trilogy? They rebuilt the sets for each movie and nobody could really tell the difference. They could rebuild just fine. They'd even be able to make up a creative reason for changes they couldn't recreate.
Thinking a little more about what you said, it occurs to me that the cost of rebuilding those sets could potentially drive the show into the red. Yeah... I see your point. The good news is that the sets can be rebuilt, the bad news is that they're budget driven and that could be a devastating blow.
Ouch.
Good thing Futurama's animated and doesn't have any sets.
" I'm looking at alternative methods, such as making the "out-of-service" tone on my answering machine. "
I did that once. Not only did I stop getting tele-marketing calls, I stopped getting calls from my friends too. Evidentally, just telling them that the sound is fake isn't enough.
"Define what a "Crappy color screen" is. The Atari Lynx and Sega Game gear were both minature 8-bit systems able to only display a certain amount of colors on screen. "
I'm a little surprised that you think I'm referring to the number of colors on the display. I'm talking about the screen itself. The Lynx and the GameGear had blurry, low-brightness, un-evenly lit screens. Their only redeeming factor was that they had color.
The Nomad had a wonderful screen. I forgot about it. It wasn't something you could put in your pocket, though.
And for the record, I've had *all* the machines mentioned in this and my previous post. I used to be quite the portable gaming enthusiast.
"Sony is my Dark Master. I bow to the whim of Sony."
Are you hinting at the second coming of Enos?
ENOS LIVES!
"So will the principled slashdotters put their money with their mouths are and not buy a PS3?"
That's not the righit way to approach it.
a.) Sony bears the brunt of the 'boycott'. They've already paid for the Rambus chips. They're not going to suddenly reengineer their hardware, so at best the results would happen 3-7 years later when it comes to making a new console.
b.) Would you be willing to blow up your own house to thwart a burgalar? Consider this: The economy is bad. All it takes is for a little bad news and money starts moving around to various markets. If Sony's not aware of the boycott, then it's the game market you're hurting. Game companies will scale back and work on more 'tried and true' game play. (read: Quake, Street Fighter, and Kart wannabes)
I don't like Sony or Rambus, but a boycott aimed at Rambus through Sony would do more harm than good.
" I just got one! And they didn't say any mainstream word about it until a quarter before it comes out?"
Heh you could have worded that more carefully. I originally thought you were claiming to have bought the new SP model.
"Otherwise, for $90 ($100 after taxes, etc), it looks like a nice evolution for the GBA..."
NO! You are 100% completely wrong!! Stop spreading FUD!!! I live in Oregon, we have no sales tax, so it'll be $90! GEEZ!
There, I proved somebody wrong, mod me up.
(Disclaimer: The previous was my impression of a good deal of responses I see on Slashdot. It's meant as a joke, laugh.)
"When will Nintendo realize that people want a backlit, colour LCD display."
What people want is a small game system that runs for hours on a couple of batteries with plenty of games. Backlit color LCD displays are only a consideration when the first goals are met.
Game Gear: Crappy color screen. Decent library. Not very portable and 6 AA's got you 3 hours of game play. System failed.
Atari Lynx: Crappy color screen. Not much in terms of games. Not very portable and 6 AA's got you a whopping 3 hours of game play. System failed.
Turbo Express: Best color screen ever on a portable. Good library of games. TV Tuner. High price. 6 AA's got you a whopping 3 hours of game play. System failed.
Neo Geo Pocket... Dare I continue?
Nintendo, the only company that has been successful with two portable systems is unaware of what people want?
"It look to me that these are designed for adults. It looks a lot slimmer and inconspicuous. Could this mean Nintendo is moving toward a more adult audience?"
Yes for the same reason that pink GBA's mean that Nintendo is focusing on female players.
"God, I could never bring myself to watch more than 15 minutes of Dr. Who (or as I call it, Dr Snooze, best solution for isomnia)."
Farscape == Fartscrape
Futurama.
"Because Farscape just happens to be THE BEST SCI-FI show ever created!"
No, Doctor Who was the best Scifi show ever created.
Efforts to get that show played on Scifi-Channel would be better rewarded. 25+ years of eps without the derivitive dribble.
Label me a troll if you like, but there's a reason that Farscape's being canned. There's an even better reason why DrW went on for so long.
Are you saying that some/most of the content was free, but the higher demand stuff cost more?
Assuming I understand properly, that's an interesting systemt. Give the content away for free for a bit and then when it reaches certain demand charge for it.
Not a bad idea really. It gives people time to look around and evaluate. They get plenty of fresh content, but the really good stuff (determined by how often it's downloaded) earns the $$$.
I could grow to really like that system. It gives the upstarts a fair chance.
"It's already hard enough to make a living using your programming skills. Imagine how difficult it's going to be like to get a job with "Video Game College" on your resume."
Why would that make it more difficult?
I *almost* went into programming but decided to go into 3D art instead. Boy am I glad I did. As an artist your calling card is the animation/artwork you do. I have no idea how I'd distinguish myself as a programmer.
"Game testing isn't really the fun-filled job you'd think it would be. You sit there and do one part over and over again. Or you die on purpose. You aren't paid to play the game, your paid to do very specefic things in specefic parts of the game. You're hunting for bugs, not playing for kicks. Just warning you."
/. article.
I remember one guy saying that he had to test every single play in a football game to make sure that it's consistent with what the interface shows you. Can you imagine that? It'd be as tedious as spell checking a
"1) If I offer something and charge for it, chances are that someone else is offering something similar for free. To justify the charge, I'd have to offer the better content, filtered of junk and perhaps ad-free as well."
You're forgetting a step here: Providing a better service. I'd rather pay $5 for a Divx movie and get it within 2-4 hours than wait 24+hours to maybe get it from P2P. Free is not necessarily the deciding factor.
Anyway, that's just a nitpick, it's not intended as a devastating blow to your argument.
"There may not be many sites worth subscribing to, but there is a wealth of content on the Internet, for almost every purpose imaginable, worth spending a small amount on once ($0.10 - $0.50) to obtain."
Hrmm. This comment struck me but I'm not sure how to respond without over-generalizing. Part of the lure of the internet is that the info is available. I personally think that the value of the content isn't the biggest question in people's minds, it's the service. The problem is that there are far too many places around to get info, so subscribing to any one place in particular feels like you're putting all your eggs in one basket.
That's why I feel that micropayments isn't necessarily the solution, especially in light of the $50 we all spend to get connected in the first place. I think these sites are better off providing upsells. "Give us a $5 donation and we'll add you to our mailing list where our stories are pushed into your inbox."
These sites need to provide unique/interesting services if they want to make money.
"People are unlikely to share videos because they don't want to admit to the world that they are into it."
It used to be taboo a few years ago, but today that's not an issue anymore. It's become generally accepted that everybody has browsed porn on the web at one point or another, whether it be intentional or not. Heck, I remember suggesting to my dad that we trade bookmarks once. Heh my step-mom didn't like that convo at all.
I don't think the sharing of videos is much of an issue here. The fact of the matter is that with the bandwidth caps in place, it isn't worth sharing videos if they provide them at a decent price. I'd *happily* buy episodes of Deep Space Nine if I could download them from a server that's reliable. The only reason I have to search for content shared by individuals today is that I have no other way to obtain it. That's why the Mystery Science Theater 3000 Digital Archive Project is up and running w/o legal troubles. The show was cancelled and is not in reruns. (At least not the first 6 seasons) Only a handful of them are available on VHS/DVD, so what do we do? Let it die?
Give me the ability to buy these on a per-episode basis and you'll make money. I won't care of it's available to be shared.
"Sites don't want to charge a reasonable fee and people think their ISP bill is an all access pass to the Internet. The idea of actually paying for products they use and paying more than the product was produced for is suddenly lost when they go online."
.AVI's for a reasonable price, they'd find themselves making quick/easy cash.
Um no, the problem is not that people don't want to pay for products. The problem is that there's little to no value in most content on the web to pay for. Let me put that in even simpler terms: The web has virtually no content that's worth paying for. It has nothing to do with the idea that everything on the net is free.
Don't believe me? Then explain to me how porn is able to thrive? Porn is delivered for free in generous servings, yet people still whip their credit cards out and buy stuff. Why? Because the net provides what they want. Imagery/Video + the privacy of their own home.
I'm shocked that the MPAA/Broadcast hasn't looked at how successful porn has been on the web and not realized the potential earnings they could make with their content. If they sold copies of TV shows using DivX
Anyway, my point is simply that the demand is there, it's the supply that's missing. It's not the other way around like the author is suggesting.
"it's not paranoia.... Remove their name. Ruin every cent they've spent on advertising by changing their name. It's nothing short of corporate terrorism."
1.) Um no, changing their name will not 'ruin every cent spent on advertising'. As a matter of fact, it's probably the best thing that ever happened to them because now everybody'll wonder what the stink is about and find out who Lindows is. MS knows they could have done more damage to them by just ignoring them rather than 'seeing them as a threat'. The problem is they have to defend their trademark. They are legally obligated to, end of story. P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A
2.) Let's talk about 'corporate terrorism'. Lindows was intentionally named to sound like Windows. There are two possibilities here. Either they, as a company, are completely and utterly stupid or they intentionally picked a fight that MS would have to battle them over. That is corporate terrorism. Any time when you intentionally try to confuse the marketplace, you are guilty of that.
I'm no fan of MS, but the Lindows case is hardly an example of MS doing anything wrong. Frankly, if I were a stockholder in the corp that makes Lindows, I'd be mad as hell that they picked that name. Fucking retards.
"not competitor; ENEMY. MS has targeted Lindows for eradication. This equals corporate warfare."
Yeah, they're trying to eradicate them by having them change their name to something that doesn't sound so much like Windows. What other paranoid propoganda are you going to push?
"http://www.ucomics.com/foxtrot/2003/01/03/"
6 249
Heh, kind of reminds me of this post made about a year ago:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26830&cid=289
(Note: Check out the parent post for the context, unfortunately it wasn't quoted.)
"I mean, if I would have THIS clause in the contract, it is NORMAL to assume that MS would play hardball to then gain all the rights."
I'd really like to see this case on Judge Judy.
People have been storing data via bacteria for as long as I can remember. Without fail, my mother always knew when it was time for me to bath.