Since the original story was making FOSS parallels to digital cameras, this would be like reprogramming the BIOS on your computer: you could do it, but there's not much creativity involved, and you'd have to work really hard to get the same functionality as that which came with the thing originally.
The "software" for a digital camera is pretty much photoshop/Gimp. If you're a digital camera fan and want to get involved in FOSS, write a new filter for Gimp. But I doubt the idea of rewriting firmware is attractive to many people.
Somewhat related to this is the fact that just announced today MLB awarded exclusive rights to fantasy games to MLB's own MLB Advanced Media that controls MLB.com...presumably this means that other baseball fantasy game companies (ESPN, Sandbox, CBSSportsline, etc) would have to buy licenses from MLBAM in order to run fantasy games...
Word is they won't be able to enforce that aspect of things, as fact-based information (like stats) has historically not been treated as part of an individual's "likeness." Thus not ownable, and 1st amendment covers it. NBA vs. StatsINC is a good decision on this, I believe.
So chances are this won't affect fantasy things, assuming other companies feel like challenging.
We just got G5 iMacs, and I imagine a G5 PowerBook would be a zillion times harder still.
I'm guessing WWDC will see pbg5's. They recently improved every product line significantly - either by improved specs or a new product - except the powerbooks, which got a modest (and due) speed bump. iPod got the shuffle, desktop got the mini, iMac gout the whole new (and really cool) redesign, etc.
I don't know if they're wanting to clear inventory and parts on the powerbook or what, but it really smells like they're planning something grand with the pbook. Like a lot of people have noticed, the iBook is WAY too close in performance to the pbook now to justify the extra price, and that can't last. It won't last.
Oh you poor, miserable bastard... You've missed so much! While we miss out on a LOT compared to the japanese market (Shin Megami Tensei before the most recent one, for example...) there are some awesome games out there. Mostly for PSX (not much in the eye-candy dept) but I think the Shadow Hearts games are right up there as some of the best RPGs available on PS2.
I didn't say I don't play RPGs - just not on the PS2. I play them on PC all the time - which seems, to me, to be a far superior medium for RPGs.
Since you seem to be better versed, how do PS2 RPGs compare to their PC cousins?
This story is nothing but a set of assertions. There's not so much as a single citation to back any of this up.
How would you go about proving that you're *not* using something? Any "citation" would just be the assertion of someone else, necessarily failing your test.
C'mon; how much more can be done with console-based football games. Maybe having a steroid selection screen, and you have to practice injecting yourself.
Honestly? They still manage to screw the game up every year with play-balance issues, and that could be addressed. Also, in the last few years, console sports games have just started to get decent "career" modes, where you play GM and put together teams year after year with players who age. Almost "RPG"-ish. Graphics get better as with any game. So have the physics of tackling. Passing controls have gotten better in football so you can do things like lead receivers and such.
Also, of course, one would prefer to get a new game every few years to have the current NFL players.
It may not seem like it, but a lot COULD be done with the standard football game to make it better. It's just that nothing will now thanks to EA.
For values of "consoles" limited to "In the US" and RPGs approaching "Not Final Fantasy" you're right.
Good point, I was assuming author was American and totally forgot the Japanese market. And yeah, FF is the only RPG on console I've heard of - and they're barely RPG's. More like delivery vehicles for nice cut scenes.;)
These sports games are getting really stale anyway. These deals actually free Sega up to do something creative with the genre...
It matters. The reason why EA did this is because last year ESPN came out with a pretty damned good football game and priced it at $19.99. EA priced theirs at $49.99, figuring that their brand recognition would allow them to charge double. They were wrong. EA had to drop their price, and evidently didn't like it because they got pissed enough to shell out for an exclusive license.
Result is they have a monopoly on NFL-licensed games for a long time. For sports fans - clearly not you, but there is some gamer/sports overlap - this sucks because we only have one choice, and it's guaranteed to be overpriced.
More than likely, no other significant NFL games will be made. Even creative games like NFL blitz etc typically need licenses to survive.
RPGs are the most important thing on any console anyway.
You are kidding right? Console sales of RPGs are almost negligible.
Frank Abignail did steal millions of dollars. He was a criminal. This kid didn't do anything of the sort -- he simply wrote programs that exposed insecurities in operating systems.
That's true - up until the point he distributed the virus, and caused (probably) millions of dollars of real damage.
That's a crime.
Ivies vs. high-profile non-ivies
on
Who Needs Harvard?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Do realize they're talking about the old-school, New England ivies here, not other good schools including MIT, Caltech, UChicago, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, GaTech, Berkeley, etc. Quite frankly, the education from the old-school ivies isn't what it once was - check out all the stories on grade inflation, enormous gen-ed requirements, etc, and I question the education coming from Harvard et al these days vs. in past. And grade inflation makes it harder to separate wheat from chaff. Basically, Harvard has become complacent.
Compare this to the competition at other competitive schools whose degree programs are still tough (see above), and A's mean something. These schools - some mentioned in the article as ivy alternatives - are picking up the slack. I know for sure that the high-profile companies the article mentioned (McKensie, Goldman-Sachs, etc) do recruit heavily among top-tier non-ivies these days. They do here at Caltech anyway.
Also, as things move more and more toward technology and fewer employers care about the liberal arts, the smaller ivies don't have the resources to compete - science is very expensive. Even Princeton and Yale didn't crack top 10 in many of the sciences, last I checked, and the other ivies aren't close. In sciences/tech, Harvard is the only Ivy that can even COMPETE with many of the the schools I listed at the top.
The second strange-looking thing is the frequent references and long discussions about What The Founders Thought. I've never seen any other nationality refer to a group of long-dead 18th politicians as a supporting point in an modern day debate.
I'll admit that's inane, but it's hard to poke fun at that when you're supporting (I assume) a version in which judges prefer to ignore the law and consider whether or not something is against "natural justice" - whatever that is. To justify this quaint little practice somewhat, it likely arises because the Constitution forms the backbone of American law, yet the writer (Jefferson) was a bit more interested in self-promotion than writing a sound legal document. Hell, the second amendment isn't even grammatically correct - and how one interprets that misplaced comma determines wheter we idiot have the right to our own personal armies.
I have my moments of disgust with the Supreme court too, and I'm no lawyer - but how can one have a legal system that routinely ignores the law? What is it for, otherwise?
Also, for what it's worth, the mandate of the Supreme Court in the US is, specifically, to judge cases with respect to existing law. For something to get before the Supreme Court, it's typically in regard to the Constitution.
Seems to me we all do this. Its called being human. What's the big deal?
No, we all don't. Some people try to be broadminded enough to realize that their opinion - or voice - isn't more important than other people's. People like michael are arrogant enough to think that 1) they're right, and 2) everyone needs to hear about it. Front page is for news. There's a comment board for a reason.
Why give the little guy a hard time, when the big schmucks do the same thing all the time?
So what, it's better to be a little schmuck? A schmuck's a schmuck. He'd be worse if he had the outlet.
Besides, this Wall St.Journal article was obtained straight from a Karl Rove fax machine. So what else is new?
So your point is...what? If your candidate is slammed, we need to fix this? I bet you and michael don't come to Bush's aid if the NYT is a tad hard on him or omits a few facts in the way of a story.
What it comes do is that some people have no problem with shitty journalism as long as the hatchet job agrees with their opinions.
That intellectual "property" law applied to genetics is unjust and wrong. Contracts may be legally binding, but if slavery were legal and a legally binding contract transferred ownership of a slave, it still wouldn't be right to consider the slave "owned", as opposed to legal. Similary, here genetic code in the abstract is being considered "owned" by the law. This is wrong as far as I'm concerned, just as claiming ownership over applied discrete mathematics == software is just wrong.
The important bit here is the "as far I'm concerned." We don't need more people trying to legislate morality. One can argue the benefits of this particular issue, but I bristle when someone refers to issues like this as "right/wrong." Kind of implies that your value structure is the right one, when you take to asserting this belief as truth.
People, particularly americans, often confuse what is legal/illegal and what is right/wrong. Please don't.
I don't know what this "American" bit is about. Who died and left you to decide for the world what's right and wrong? Legal/Illegal is the only thing that actually CAN be determined. Right/wrong is an *opinion.* You're entitled to yours, but that doesn't make it universal.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a news site running opinion stories, as long as they're marked as such. So, if Michael really thinks he has something to say and that we should care about his opinion, he could try writing his very own editorials (hey, Slashdot even has a corresponding topic icon).
Don't get me wrong: I'm not offended from an ethics standpoint. I'm simply annoyed with michael, who seems to believe his own little predictable rants are deemed more important than everyone else's, and in fact need to be attached to actual news stories on the front page.
And as you mention, slashdot has a corresponding icon if he's so inclined.
To repeat the previous poster without being crass, michael, you can make your comments on the comment page. We really don't care about your opinions. At all. And they really aren't insightful enough to justify you ranting about the article on the front page.
The thing that stood out to me in the article was how billie seems to think people have no other incentive in innovating than profit. True innovators innovate for the challenge and because that's just what they LIKE doing. Profiting from it is just a side effect.
Bill doesn't believe it because he can't understand that someone would care about something other than money. THat he doesn't understand that has led him to greatly underestimate the open source movement by branding it as a bunch of hippies/commies/untalented dipshits. Let's let him keep believing it, hey?
even worse...
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 2, Informative
1/3 of all auto accidents involve people who test positive for marijuana use.
I recall that statistic, and it's not quite right (though your joke was appreciated nonetheless). That stat, I believe, was that 1/3 of people tested for drugs after a traffic accident tested positive for MJ. That's a bit different.
So, really, what that was testing was the ability of cops to tell what drivers were stoned. And, in this case, there were 2x as many false positives as actual positives.
That stat, brought to us by anti-drug people, was totally misleading, and pretty damn funny I think.
Weatherbug may or may not be spyware, but I'm inclined to believe it is. Legit companies don't install upgrades against your consent and make it hard as hell to uninstall their software. That is how spyware/malware generally works though.
Adware (like weatherbug) has just as much reason as spy/malware to install itself never to be uninstalled. This is an important point that isn't being made enough, which is that adware is damn near as bad as spyware. The distinction lets weatherbug off the hook by claiming, probably correctly, that they aren't spyware.
I think we need a new term to describe software - of any ilk - that refuses to uninstall, or reinstalls itself, or penetrates so much of your OS that you can't uninstall it. I nominate either "cancerware" or "kudzuware" (after that lovely plant that now covers most of the US South, and is impossible to eradicate).
Meanwhile, the CEO of Nichia held a separate press conference where he announced that real researchers do it for the joy of technical achievement, and not for mere monetary compensation. What an asshole...
Nakamura should ask him if the same is true of "real" CEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
The "software" for a digital camera is pretty much photoshop/Gimp. If you're a digital camera fan and want to get involved in FOSS, write a new filter for Gimp. But I doubt the idea of rewriting firmware is attractive to many people.
Do you have a point?
Word is they won't be able to enforce that aspect of things, as fact-based information (like stats) has historically not been treated as part of an individual's "likeness." Thus not ownable, and 1st amendment covers it. NBA vs. StatsINC is a good decision on this, I believe.
So chances are this won't affect fantasy things, assuming other companies feel like challenging.
I'm guessing WWDC will see pbg5's. They recently improved every product line significantly - either by improved specs or a new product - except the powerbooks, which got a modest (and due) speed bump. iPod got the shuffle, desktop got the mini, iMac gout the whole new (and really cool) redesign, etc.
I don't know if they're wanting to clear inventory and parts on the powerbook or what, but it really smells like they're planning something grand with the pbook. Like a lot of people have noticed, the iBook is WAY too close in performance to the pbook now to justify the extra price, and that can't last. It won't last.
I didn't say I don't play RPGs - just not on the PS2. I play them on PC all the time - which seems, to me, to be a far superior medium for RPGs.
Since you seem to be better versed, how do PS2 RPGs compare to their PC cousins?
How would you go about proving that you're *not* using something? Any "citation" would just be the assertion of someone else, necessarily failing your test.
Honestly? They still manage to screw the game up every year with play-balance issues, and that could be addressed. Also, in the last few years, console sports games have just started to get decent "career" modes, where you play GM and put together teams year after year with players who age. Almost "RPG"-ish. Graphics get better as with any game. So have the physics of tackling. Passing controls have gotten better in football so you can do things like lead receivers and such.
Also, of course, one would prefer to get a new game every few years to have the current NFL players.
It may not seem like it, but a lot COULD be done with the standard football game to make it better. It's just that nothing will now thanks to EA.
Good point, I was assuming author was American and totally forgot the Japanese market. And yeah, FF is the only RPG on console I've heard of - and they're barely RPG's. More like delivery vehicles for nice cut scenes. ;)
It matters. The reason why EA did this is because last year ESPN came out with a pretty damned good football game and priced it at $19.99. EA priced theirs at $49.99, figuring that their brand recognition would allow them to charge double. They were wrong. EA had to drop their price, and evidently didn't like it because they got pissed enough to shell out for an exclusive license.
Result is they have a monopoly on NFL-licensed games for a long time. For sports fans - clearly not you, but there is some gamer/sports overlap - this sucks because we only have one choice, and it's guaranteed to be overpriced.
More than likely, no other significant NFL games will be made. Even creative games like NFL blitz etc typically need licenses to survive.
RPGs are the most important thing on any console anyway.
You are kidding right? Console sales of RPGs are almost negligible.
...it's binary?
So how'd HIS viruses get out? I'm not believing him.
That's true - up until the point he distributed the virus, and caused (probably) millions of dollars of real damage.
That's a crime.
Compare this to the competition at other competitive schools whose degree programs are still tough (see above), and A's mean something. These schools - some mentioned in the article as ivy alternatives - are picking up the slack. I know for sure that the high-profile companies the article mentioned (McKensie, Goldman-Sachs, etc) do recruit heavily among top-tier non-ivies these days. They do here at Caltech anyway.
Also, as things move more and more toward technology and fewer employers care about the liberal arts, the smaller ivies don't have the resources to compete - science is very expensive. Even Princeton and Yale didn't crack top 10 in many of the sciences, last I checked, and the other ivies aren't close. In sciences/tech, Harvard is the only Ivy that can even COMPETE with many of the the schools I listed at the top.
I'll admit that's inane, but it's hard to poke fun at that when you're supporting (I assume) a version in which judges prefer to ignore the law and consider whether or not something is against "natural justice" - whatever that is. To justify this quaint little practice somewhat, it likely arises because the Constitution forms the backbone of American law, yet the writer (Jefferson) was a bit more interested in self-promotion than writing a sound legal document. Hell, the second amendment isn't even grammatically correct - and how one interprets that misplaced comma determines wheter we idiot have the right to our own personal armies.
I have my moments of disgust with the Supreme court too, and I'm no lawyer - but how can one have a legal system that routinely ignores the law? What is it for, otherwise?
Also, for what it's worth, the mandate of the Supreme Court in the US is, specifically, to judge cases with respect to existing law. For something to get before the Supreme Court, it's typically in regard to the Constitution.
No, we all don't. Some people try to be broadminded enough to realize that their opinion - or voice - isn't more important than other people's. People like michael are arrogant enough to think that 1) they're right, and 2) everyone needs to hear about it. Front page is for news. There's a comment board for a reason.
Why give the little guy a hard time, when the big schmucks do the same thing all the time?
So what, it's better to be a little schmuck? A schmuck's a schmuck. He'd be worse if he had the outlet.
Besides, this Wall St.Journal article was obtained straight from a Karl Rove fax machine. So what else is new?
So your point is...what? If your candidate is slammed, we need to fix this? I bet you and michael don't come to Bush's aid if the NYT is a tad hard on him or omits a few facts in the way of a story.
What it comes do is that some people have no problem with shitty journalism as long as the hatchet job agrees with their opinions.
The important bit here is the "as far I'm concerned." We don't need more people trying to legislate morality. One can argue the benefits of this particular issue, but I bristle when someone refers to issues like this as "right/wrong." Kind of implies that your value structure is the right one, when you take to asserting this belief as truth.
People, particularly americans, often confuse what is legal/illegal and what is right/wrong. Please don't.
I don't know what this "American" bit is about. Who died and left you to decide for the world what's right and wrong? Legal/Illegal is the only thing that actually CAN be determined. Right/wrong is an *opinion.* You're entitled to yours, but that doesn't make it universal.
Let's not nuke the guy's interactive telnet temp server, OK?
Don't get me wrong: I'm not offended from an ethics standpoint. I'm simply annoyed with michael, who seems to believe his own little predictable rants are deemed more important than everyone else's, and in fact need to be attached to actual news stories on the front page.
And as you mention, slashdot has a corresponding icon if he's so inclined.
To repeat the previous poster without being crass, michael, you can make your comments on the comment page. We really don't care about your opinions. At all. And they really aren't insightful enough to justify you ranting about the article on the front page.
Bill doesn't believe it because he can't understand that someone would care about something other than money. THat he doesn't understand that has led him to greatly underestimate the open source movement by branding it as a bunch of hippies/commies/untalented dipshits. Let's let him keep believing it, hey?
I recall that statistic, and it's not quite right (though your joke was appreciated nonetheless). That stat, I believe, was that 1/3 of people tested for drugs after a traffic accident tested positive for MJ. That's a bit different.
So, really, what that was testing was the ability of cops to tell what drivers were stoned. And, in this case, there were 2x as many false positives as actual positives.
That stat, brought to us by anti-drug people, was totally misleading, and pretty damn funny I think.
Adware (like weatherbug) has just as much reason as spy/malware to install itself never to be uninstalled. This is an important point that isn't being made enough, which is that adware is damn near as bad as spyware. The distinction lets weatherbug off the hook by claiming, probably correctly, that they aren't spyware.
I think we need a new term to describe software - of any ilk - that refuses to uninstall, or reinstalls itself, or penetrates so much of your OS that you can't uninstall it. I nominate either "cancerware" or "kudzuware" (after that lovely plant that now covers most of the US South, and is impossible to eradicate).
But Stephen King was. Found dead in his Bangor, ME home. Truly an American icon.
I should say. ;)
Nakamura should ask him if the same is true of "real" CEOs.