Panspermia is a valid (ish) scientific theory, that would serve as the "intelligent designer" of ID.
No, see, it wouldn't. Having life come from another planet doesn't address the fundamental issue ID has, which is complex organs like eyes and brains and intelligence itself arising naturally.
If you're referring to the version where bacteria somehow made the journey to earth from somewhere else, which I think could certainly be possible, then that bacteria would still have to evolve into us. ID says this is impossible.
If you mean that aliens sent/brought life to earth and possibly manipulated it, this is also at least conceivable, where did the aliens capable of doing this come from? They either had to arise naturally (impossible acording to ID), or have been designed themselves. Thus the recursive problem I described in my footnote.
Space aliens do not work. The only origin of intelligent life ID allows is supernatural. Panspermia is not equivalent to or compatable with ID. I wouldn't believe that Crick was an ID believer unless he had said so himself.
As a degreed theologian, that pisses me the hell off because it used to be quite an elegant answer to the question of the one of the larger differences in faith; now it is useless to me.
Well, that's unfortunate. Since your explanation sound definitely more theological, I'm going to say the problem started when someone decided to apply the concept to science, for political ends no less. This also suggests even more strongly that the underpinnings of the ID-as-science movement are in fact religious.
You have piqued my curiosity about what term originally meant, though.
use them, because turning down business advantage is stupid, and because your arm will be twisted with other people's patents unless you have enough of your own to twist back
"Using" patents as in filing for them so that you can defend yourself from others' attempts to bring claims against you is one thing. Most companies' patent portfolios are used for this purpose. In fact the patent lawyer at my company explicitly stated that we file patents so that when (not if) we are found to be violating another company's patents and we both sit down at the negotiating table, we can use the patents of ours that they are inevitably violating to force a favorable settlement. This is also a very reasonable position from which to oppose patents, because if you lost your patents you would only lose a now unnecessary defense.
"Using" patents as in going on the offensive and suing those who infringe your patents (a side issue to the fact that they threaten your business model with competition) is entirely another. It is this abuse of the patent system to shut out competition that is wrong, and hypocritical if you complain when it is subsequently done to you.
I hope you do not consider this a flame. There are holes in the sense there are lots and lots of gaps in the fossil record. Each time a new transitional species is found there a usually at least two more.
I'd only consider it a flame if you're implying more than you are saying. As it is, I agree. There are holes in the fossil record. In fact there is a hole for each organism we don't have a fossil of, and as such new findings only reduce the number of holes. However this is not the same as saying there are holes in evolutionary theory, in fact quite the opposite. Evolution predicted a creature like Archeopterix, and we found it. Evolution predicted a creature like Homo Erectus, and we found it. Each transitional species we find is reinforcement of evolution because it supports the predictions made by evolutionary theory.
Your viewpoint is common among those Christians who appreciate science and aren't aware of the fundamentalist political motivations for ID. My father, for example, put it in more or less the same terms: "Intelligent Design" just means that evolution occured, and that it occured was God's will. From this view, where science is the "how" and God is the "why", "Intelligent Design" is just putting a name to the concept and shouldn't affect one iota the scientists doing evolution research (whether those scientists are religious or not), because it makes zero new scientific claims.
Of course creating a word for the harmony that can exist between science and religion is not the reason ID was created.
The whole point of Intelligent Design is to be an alternative to evolution, to replace it with a theory that (very) superficially* does not seem to be religious in nature. ID is supposed to discredit evolution, and leave open the possibility of Creationism, and to even allow Creationism (its nature covered by the thin veneer ID offers) to be taught in public schools without violating the 1st Ammendment.
ID was created to destroy the "heretical" teaching of evolution, and as such people with views like yours (and mine, and my father's) are diametrically opposed to the true supporters of ID. It is the thin end of the wedge intended to drive fundamentalism into our schools and "secular" scientific teaching out.
ID is a political movement with political goals, and a rational attempt to reconcile ID's statements with the scientific facts of evolution is contrary to those goals. So while I agree 100% with your view, you must take great care in using "Intelligent Design" to describe it, because you will be misrepresenting yourself.
* ID proponents may tell you that ID does not necessarily mean the Christian God or any other god did it, and maybe it was space aliens. They're lying to conceal ID's religious basis. The whole argument of ID is that something like the human brain could not have developed from natural processes, so some other intelligence must have made the brain. By ID's central hypothesis, that other intelligence could not have arisen from natural processes. Simple induction tells us that however long the sequence of Designers, the original Designer must therefore be supernatural. Everyone intuitively understands this, especially the fundamentalist backers of ID, but they have to pretend not to in order to avoid that annoying Separation of Church and State.
Whether Darwinists want to admit it or not, there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution you could drive a truck through. Even Darwin himself admitted this. He freely admitted that evolution could not explain complex organs like the eye.
Fortunately evolutionary science didn't stop with Darwin.
In this light the IBM strategy makes perfect sense: let SCO do as much as possible to hang themselves.
The Judge's behavior also makes perfect sense for the same reason. SCO's "we'll have specific evidence of actual infringement that we can give to the court as soon as IBM finds it for us" methodology can't have passed by the judge. Rather than do what we all wish and clobber these guys immediately, the Judge is giving them every leniency imaginable so that when the innevitable judicial beatdown occurs there is absolutely no basis for an appeal.
And it truly is amazing how much they've gotten away with. They have been repeatedly asked to give "with specificity" information about what code they are claiming has actually been misused, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. They've done complety 180s on their claims (copyright! trade secret! contract violation!) but never given an example of what precisely they believe IBM to have done. You know Judge Judy wouldn't put up with that crap.
Is this not the same company that sued Handspring over the shape of the buttons on their Treo keyboards?
I'm not saying the circumstances are the same, and the article doesn't make clear what reforms he wants (apparently patents with hundreds of claims are seen as problematic, and I agree)... it just strikes me as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I personally am more against the extremely low standards for novelty and non-obviousness than anything, which is why RIM striking out against patents sticks in my craw. But hey, maybe they've now seen the light and realize patent holders simply have too much power.
This is why being a programmer has made me even more against having machines in charge. It should be unthinkable that you could use a computer program to detect plagiarism and expell someone without having a human being look into the issue. Computers execute hard-coded algorithms without fail, which does not account for the algorithm itself being flawed, or situations outside the scope of the algorithm (like the "plagiarism" coming from one of the author's previous works).
I was a TA for an operating systems class, and we used automated tools to detect possible plagiarism, but this was only the first step. Human inspection revealed that some was in fact plagiarism, but there were also false positives. We weren't exactly surprised; it was assumed this was possible and that human investigation was necessary. We never considered "rubber stamping" the verdict of the program.
People who trust computers don't understand them. People who use computers to make decisions for them (rather than provide data to inform their own decisions) are lazy. Combine the two, and bad things happen.
I'm not likely to live to see copyright expire on the iTMS songs in my iTunes library, but my kids might. Yet no DRM system I'm aware of makes allowance for passage into public domain.
That's right, because the purveyors of DRMed material are not going to allow any of that material to enter the public domain. Endless copyright extensions is the name of the game. Don't think that it's some kind of oversight on their part -- remember that if the content's copyright expires, then it would no longer be a DMCA violation to break the DRM. It's all part of a two-prong legal and technical approach to ensuring that nobody is ever able to avoid paying over, and over, and over...
I appreciate your smarminess, but it was in fact proprietary (resulting in higher cost, a major reason why it failed -- no adoption by the porn industry). Do you think that if DRM was around back then Sony wouldn't have added it? I wasn't trying to describe a series of "failue bullet points" but the Sony mentality.
In any case, Blu Ray is not a "Sony format". Sony just happens to be one of several backers.
Sure, but it sure is looking like Sony is the major backer, as in the only one with a real stake in the format. I could be wrong, but Blu Ray looks to be as much of a non-Sony thing as Hypertransport is a non-AMD thing. There are plenty of formats and "standards" with long lists of backers which are really the product of one company seeking to create the impression of universal industry support.
My original analogy with gases is far better than the silly rule based thing that I wrote when jumping the gun in response to your accusing me of jumping the gun.
ngm wasn't the one that accused you of jumping the gun, that was ergo98. Maybe you shouldn't have jumped the gun in this reply.;)
You're really missing what is interesting about this, and both your analogies suck as a result. Neither fluid dynamics nor a simple selfish optimization algorithm describe this behavior. When presented with three shelters each with room for all, all the roaches inhabited one shelter, indicating a preference for large groups. When presented with three shelters with insufficient space, they split into two exactly equal sized groups and occupied two shelters. For this to happen, a potential 26th cockroach who would have fit easily into the 40-roach shelters and thus be part of a larger group decided instead to move into the smaller 24-roach group.
So this behavior is fairly sophisticated, and does in fact involve decisions about the population as a whole and would require communication, which is briefly described as "consultation" preceding the roaches splitting into two groups.
Heh. My work web proxy blocked that link as being "Gruesome Content". That's pretty hilarious, though I understand how BOFH which frequently involves the maiming and mangling of both administrators, managers, and more terrifyingly server kit could be considered damaging to employees...
I think a lot of folks are looking at the fact that Sony is a member of the Blu Ray consortium and saying, "That settles that! Sony formats always fail!" Hardly logical
Well, it is pretty logical if you add in the rest of the logic. Why do Sony formats always fail? Because they make them proprietary, DRM-encumbered, and thus less useful than competing formats. Is it likely that Sony will pursue a similar strategy as they have with other formats in the past? They have given no indication that they are going to do things differently. The only real difference is the more or less guaranteed market of PS3 games.
So it's not really predicting failure based solely on a track record, but on the behaviors behind that track record and seeing those behaviors continue.
But, I think that if Sony came back at it, even now, and tried this strategy, it could work. Even this late in the game, with the right promotion and presentation. But it's a good idea, so, fat chance of that happening, eh?
Can you be so sure yours is the only smart thing to do? Let's compare your idea with Sony's own idea for saving UMD. From the article:
"We're hoping the format's going to be reinvigorated with next-generation capability that may include living-room or normal television playback," [Benjamin Feingold, president of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment] said.
So your idea is to price UMD disks at one third of what DVDs cost to encourage adoption and minimize the pain of re-purchasing content in an inferior but more portable format.
Sony's idea is to add "next-generation" features to their portable format like... playing it on your TV at home.
It is really sad to see them lying to us (and maybe even themselves) so blatantly.
Oh, there's no doubt they are lying to us, and very little doubt that they are lying to themselves.
They're lying to us so that we won't recognize the screw job for what it is and revolt before they had a chance to secure our replacements.
The same people who advocate outsourcing jobs to cut costs and thus earn themselves a fat bonus definitely don't want to draw the obvious conclusion that they are next, and so are lying to themselves.
I wonder why... the phrase "don't give them ideas" is commonly used?
It's commonly used on people who already tend to express negative behaviors regardless of whether they're given ideas or not. E.g.: "Those greedy bastards in Congress. Next they'll be taxing us for the air we breathe!" "Don't give them any ideas."
Which is in fact perfect for the situation -- this man was already violent. That the particular violent acts he performed may or may not have been influenced by a game is just a footnote. Not that it looks like they were -- other than police officers being involved, there is nothing "GTA-like" about his violent acts.
Perhaps if he hadn't played the game, he would have shot them in the chest where hopefully the cops couldn't have died instantly.
Nonsense. First, any idiot knows you will be more likely to kill someone if you shoot them in the head. Cops are trained to aim for the torso to be more sure of your shot. I learned this long before the first video game that bothered to distinguish "head shots" came around, and then it was only representing what everyone already knew. If this guy wanted to kill the cop, and was close enough to shoot him in the head, he was going to shoot him in the head.
Having clearly never played the game yourself, let me also say that GTA does not particularly encourage head shots. The basic targeting system does not allow it, and using manual targeting is difficult and dangerous in most firefights. Which is just one small example of the ludicrosity of the statement:
In other words, videogames TRAIN the players to become better and more effective criminals. I don't know about you, but the thought gives me the creeps.
There is no practical real-world skill that you can learn from GTA. Learn how to car-jack? I keep looking for the Triangle button but can't find it. Firing a gun? Holding R1 to target and X to shoot doesn't do anything to teach you how to fire in real life -- I know, I've done both. The only reason it gives you the creeps is because you've never played to know that it is absolutely nothing like real life and there is no transferable skill that you can learn. Anyone who thought they could practice to become a criminal by playing GTA would find themselves sadly mistaken.
Here's the fact: Millions of people play games like GTA. A few perform violent acts that can in some way be described as being like the game. That's pretty shitty for a game that TRAINS you to be a criminal. In fact, that's the exact same ratio of people who end up being violent criminals in the populace at large. Could it... could it be... that games have nothing to do with causing crime, and are nothing but a scapegoat used as a weak defense by the criminal themselves, and by clueless idiots who are incapable of thinking about the true causes of crime?
t-shirts and cutoffs aren't very comfortable compared to well-made, ironed clothing
Pfft. Says you. If you find a button-down collar shirt you have to iron every morning (or whatever the hell you meant by "well-made, ironed"), then wear it. I find little to be more comfortable than a cotton t-shirt and a pair of shorts. If you, the self-acknowledged sloppily-dressed engineer, are too lazy to dress in a way that you feel would both make managers think more highly of you and make you more comfortable, that's your problem.
And yeah, there are things that aren't worth my time. Like ironing a shirt that I would be less comfortable wearing.
I was fairly certain I didn't imply that dress code had anything to do with causing IBMs turnaround, but apparently that was a bad assumption. The dress code change occured during IBMs re-evaluation of their strategy, said re-evaluation being the historical backdrop for the matter of discussion, that being dress codes.
The point was that this change in dress code is clearly not harming the adoption of IBM products.
IBM used to make their techies wear suits. Then, during the dark period in the late 80s and early 90s when they were struggling to reinvent themselves, they had a revelation: Business-type customers like to see people in "professional" business atire, but this only matters if the customer actually sees you. The rest of the time, it is fine to dress comfortably. Thus sales, marketing, and any techie who happened to be interacting with the business-type customers would wear a suit and tie, everyone else wore what they wanted. Bam! Problem solved! And since then, the "sandal and ponytail set" hasn't stopped IBM from making sales, now have they?
So the fundamental problem, if there really is a real problem behind the article, is that the wrong people are speaking to each other. If you're trying to make an OSS business case to the business-types, then yeah you need a business-type person dressed in business-type clothing to do the talking. If you aren't a for-profit organization who can hire such a person to do the talking for you, then why do you give a fuck if the business types listen or not? The techies will listen to you, and you'll get in like most OSS has gotten in -- via the back door in the server room. If you are a for-profit, then why do you need a cnet article to tell you to "dress for success" and hire a marketing person instead of sending your be-sandled techies out into the field?
I don't know, this whole thing smacks of misdirection. He says it's the poor dress code that's causing the slow adoption, but then makes it sound more like it's politics and "IT leadership" (interpreted to mean some kind of management, shouldn't be wearing sandals) that are to blame. It sounds to me like the real reasons for the slow adoption of OSS have nothing to do with "sandals and ponytails", and "OMG RMS dresses looks like a dirty hippy!" is just an excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Panspermia is a valid (ish) scientific theory, that would serve as the "intelligent designer" of ID.
No, see, it wouldn't. Having life come from another planet doesn't address the fundamental issue ID has, which is complex organs like eyes and brains and intelligence itself arising naturally.
If you're referring to the version where bacteria somehow made the journey to earth from somewhere else, which I think could certainly be possible, then that bacteria would still have to evolve into us. ID says this is impossible.
If you mean that aliens sent/brought life to earth and possibly manipulated it, this is also at least conceivable, where did the aliens capable of doing this come from? They either had to arise naturally (impossible acording to ID), or have been designed themselves. Thus the recursive problem I described in my footnote.
Space aliens do not work. The only origin of intelligent life ID allows is supernatural. Panspermia is not equivalent to or compatable with ID. I wouldn't believe that Crick was an ID believer unless he had said so himself.
As a degreed theologian, that pisses me the hell off because it used to be quite an elegant answer to the question of the one of the larger differences in faith; now it is useless to me.
Well, that's unfortunate. Since your explanation sound definitely more theological, I'm going to say the problem started when someone decided to apply the concept to science, for political ends no less. This also suggests even more strongly that the underpinnings of the ID-as-science movement are in fact religious.
You have piqued my curiosity about what term originally meant, though.
I don't recall stating there was no human interaction involved.
I don't recall replying to your post, nor do I recall implying that any particular system did not involve human interaction. HAND.
use them, because turning down business advantage is stupid, and because your arm will be twisted with other people's patents unless you have enough of your own to twist back
"Using" patents as in filing for them so that you can defend yourself from others' attempts to bring claims against you is one thing. Most companies' patent portfolios are used for this purpose. In fact the patent lawyer at my company explicitly stated that we file patents so that when (not if) we are found to be violating another company's patents and we both sit down at the negotiating table, we can use the patents of ours that they are inevitably violating to force a favorable settlement. This is also a very reasonable position from which to oppose patents, because if you lost your patents you would only lose a now unnecessary defense.
"Using" patents as in going on the offensive and suing those who infringe your patents (a side issue to the fact that they threaten your business model with competition) is entirely another. It is this abuse of the patent system to shut out competition that is wrong, and hypocritical if you complain when it is subsequently done to you.
I hope you do not consider this a flame. There are holes in the sense there are lots and lots of gaps in the fossil record. Each time a new transitional species is found there a usually at least two more.
I'd only consider it a flame if you're implying more than you are saying. As it is, I agree. There are holes in the fossil record. In fact there is a hole for each organism we don't have a fossil of, and as such new findings only reduce the number of holes. However this is not the same as saying there are holes in evolutionary theory, in fact quite the opposite. Evolution predicted a creature like Archeopterix, and we found it. Evolution predicted a creature like Homo Erectus, and we found it. Each transitional species we find is reinforcement of evolution because it supports the predictions made by evolutionary theory.
Your viewpoint is common among those Christians who appreciate science and aren't aware of the fundamentalist political motivations for ID. My father, for example, put it in more or less the same terms: "Intelligent Design" just means that evolution occured, and that it occured was God's will. From this view, where science is the "how" and God is the "why", "Intelligent Design" is just putting a name to the concept and shouldn't affect one iota the scientists doing evolution research (whether those scientists are religious or not), because it makes zero new scientific claims.
Of course creating a word for the harmony that can exist between science and religion is not the reason ID was created.
The whole point of Intelligent Design is to be an alternative to evolution, to replace it with a theory that (very) superficially* does not seem to be religious in nature. ID is supposed to discredit evolution, and leave open the possibility of Creationism, and to even allow Creationism (its nature covered by the thin veneer ID offers) to be taught in public schools without violating the 1st Ammendment.
ID was created to destroy the "heretical" teaching of evolution, and as such people with views like yours (and mine, and my father's) are diametrically opposed to the true supporters of ID. It is the thin end of the wedge intended to drive fundamentalism into our schools and "secular" scientific teaching out.
ID is a political movement with political goals, and a rational attempt to reconcile ID's statements with the scientific facts of evolution is contrary to those goals. So while I agree 100% with your view, you must take great care in using "Intelligent Design" to describe it, because you will be misrepresenting yourself.
* ID proponents may tell you that ID does not necessarily mean the Christian God or any other god did it, and maybe it was space aliens. They're lying to conceal ID's religious basis. The whole argument of ID is that something like the human brain could not have developed from natural processes, so some other intelligence must have made the brain. By ID's central hypothesis, that other intelligence could not have arisen from natural processes. Simple induction tells us that however long the sequence of Designers, the original Designer must therefore be supernatural. Everyone intuitively understands this, especially the fundamentalist backers of ID, but they have to pretend not to in order to avoid that annoying Separation of Church and State.
Whether Darwinists want to admit it or not, there are gaping holes in the theory of evolution you could drive a truck through. Even Darwin himself admitted this. He freely admitted that evolution could not explain complex organs like the eye.
Fortunately evolutionary science didn't stop with Darwin.
No, it was definitely a patent issue.e nt+keyboard
http://www.google.com/search?q=rim+handspring+pat
In this light the IBM strategy makes perfect sense: let SCO do as much as possible to hang themselves.
The Judge's behavior also makes perfect sense for the same reason. SCO's "we'll have specific evidence of actual infringement that we can give to the court as soon as IBM finds it for us" methodology can't have passed by the judge. Rather than do what we all wish and clobber these guys immediately, the Judge is giving them every leniency imaginable so that when the innevitable judicial beatdown occurs there is absolutely no basis for an appeal.
And it truly is amazing how much they've gotten away with. They have been repeatedly asked to give "with specificity" information about what code they are claiming has actually been misused, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. They've done complety 180s on their claims (copyright! trade secret! contract violation!) but never given an example of what precisely they believe IBM to have done. You know Judge Judy wouldn't put up with that crap.
Is this not the same company that sued Handspring over the shape of the buttons on their Treo keyboards?
I'm not saying the circumstances are the same, and the article doesn't make clear what reforms he wants (apparently patents with hundreds of claims are seen as problematic, and I agree)... it just strikes me as a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I personally am more against the extremely low standards for novelty and non-obviousness than anything, which is why RIM striking out against patents sticks in my craw. But hey, maybe they've now seen the light and realize patent holders simply have too much power.
This is why being a programmer has made me even more against having machines in charge. It should be unthinkable that you could use a computer program to detect plagiarism and expell someone without having a human being look into the issue. Computers execute hard-coded algorithms without fail, which does not account for the algorithm itself being flawed, or situations outside the scope of the algorithm (like the "plagiarism" coming from one of the author's previous works).
I was a TA for an operating systems class, and we used automated tools to detect possible plagiarism, but this was only the first step. Human inspection revealed that some was in fact plagiarism, but there were also false positives. We weren't exactly surprised; it was assumed this was possible and that human investigation was necessary. We never considered "rubber stamping" the verdict of the program.
People who trust computers don't understand them. People who use computers to make decisions for them (rather than provide data to inform their own decisions) are lazy. Combine the two, and bad things happen.
Pirate pirate pirate pirate pirate pirate pirate pirate pirate. Mon-key! Mon-key! Pirate pirate pirate - okay I'm done.
I'm not likely to live to see copyright expire on the iTMS songs in my iTunes library, but my kids might. Yet no DRM system I'm aware of makes allowance for passage into public domain.
That's right, because the purveyors of DRMed material are not going to allow any of that material to enter the public domain. Endless copyright extensions is the name of the game. Don't think that it's some kind of oversight on their part -- remember that if the content's copyright expires, then it would no longer be a DMCA violation to break the DRM. It's all part of a two-prong legal and technical approach to ensuring that nobody is ever able to avoid paying over, and over, and over...
Geeze, another example of how Ben Franklin rules.
But I bet even he didn't think of putting his subscription library online!
Did Beta video tapes have DRM? I was unaware.
I appreciate your smarminess, but it was in fact proprietary (resulting in higher cost, a major reason why it failed -- no adoption by the porn industry). Do you think that if DRM was around back then Sony wouldn't have added it? I wasn't trying to describe a series of "failue bullet points" but the Sony mentality.
In any case, Blu Ray is not a "Sony format". Sony just happens to be one of several backers.
Sure, but it sure is looking like Sony is the major backer, as in the only one with a real stake in the format. I could be wrong, but Blu Ray looks to be as much of a non-Sony thing as Hypertransport is a non-AMD thing. There are plenty of formats and "standards" with long lists of backers which are really the product of one company seeking to create the impression of universal industry support.
My original analogy with gases is far better than the silly rule based thing that I wrote when jumping the gun in response to your accusing me of jumping the gun.
;)
ngm wasn't the one that accused you of jumping the gun, that was ergo98. Maybe you shouldn't have jumped the gun in this reply.
You're really missing what is interesting about this, and both your analogies suck as a result. Neither fluid dynamics nor a simple selfish optimization algorithm describe this behavior. When presented with three shelters each with room for all, all the roaches inhabited one shelter, indicating a preference for large groups. When presented with three shelters with insufficient space, they split into two exactly equal sized groups and occupied two shelters. For this to happen, a potential 26th cockroach who would have fit easily into the 40-roach shelters and thus be part of a larger group decided instead to move into the smaller 24-roach group.
So this behavior is fairly sophisticated, and does in fact involve decisions about the population as a whole and would require communication, which is briefly described as "consultation" preceding the roaches splitting into two groups.
Heh. My work web proxy blocked that link as being "Gruesome Content". That's pretty hilarious, though I understand how BOFH which frequently involves the maiming and mangling of both administrators, managers, and more terrifyingly server kit could be considered damaging to employees...
I think a lot of folks are looking at the fact that Sony is a member of the Blu Ray consortium and saying, "That settles that! Sony formats always fail!" Hardly logical
Well, it is pretty logical if you add in the rest of the logic. Why do Sony formats always fail? Because they make them proprietary, DRM-encumbered, and thus less useful than competing formats. Is it likely that Sony will pursue a similar strategy as they have with other formats in the past? They have given no indication that they are going to do things differently. The only real difference is the more or less guaranteed market of PS3 games.
So it's not really predicting failure based solely on a track record, but on the behaviors behind that track record and seeing those behaviors continue.
But, I think that if Sony came back at it, even now, and tried this strategy, it could work. Even this late in the game, with the right promotion and presentation. But it's a good idea, so, fat chance of that happening, eh?
Can you be so sure yours is the only smart thing to do? Let's compare your idea with Sony's own idea for saving UMD. From the article:
"We're hoping the format's going to be reinvigorated with next-generation capability that may include living-room or normal television playback," [Benjamin Feingold, president of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment] said.
So your idea is to price UMD disks at one third of what DVDs cost to encourage adoption and minimize the pain of re-purchasing content in an inferior but more portable format.
Sony's idea is to add "next-generation" features to their portable format like... playing it on your TV at home.
Um, yeah. I think you win.
About TFA, the solution seems more like jumping from a sinking ship to one with termites eating at a wooden hull.
Which is a better than jumping to a ship with termites eating at a metal hull, because those would be some tough termites.
That we are -ALL- going to be managers.
It is really sad to see them lying to us (and maybe even themselves) so blatantly.
Oh, there's no doubt they are lying to us, and very little doubt that they are lying to themselves.
They're lying to us so that we won't recognize the screw job for what it is and revolt before they had a chance to secure our replacements.
The same people who advocate outsourcing jobs to cut costs and thus earn themselves a fat bonus definitely don't want to draw the obvious conclusion that they are next, and so are lying to themselves.
Management! It's proof against outsourcing!
I laugh cynically.
I wonder why... the phrase "don't give them ideas" is commonly used?
It's commonly used on people who already tend to express negative behaviors regardless of whether they're given ideas or not. E.g.:
"Those greedy bastards in Congress. Next they'll be taxing us for the air we breathe!"
"Don't give them any ideas."
Which is in fact perfect for the situation -- this man was already violent. That the particular violent acts he performed may or may not have been influenced by a game is just a footnote. Not that it looks like they were -- other than police officers being involved, there is nothing "GTA-like" about his violent acts.
Perhaps if he hadn't played the game, he would have shot them in the chest where hopefully the cops couldn't have died instantly.
Nonsense. First, any idiot knows you will be more likely to kill someone if you shoot them in the head. Cops are trained to aim for the torso to be more sure of your shot. I learned this long before the first video game that bothered to distinguish "head shots" came around, and then it was only representing what everyone already knew. If this guy wanted to kill the cop, and was close enough to shoot him in the head, he was going to shoot him in the head.
Having clearly never played the game yourself, let me also say that GTA does not particularly encourage head shots. The basic targeting system does not allow it, and using manual targeting is difficult and dangerous in most firefights. Which is just one small example of the ludicrosity of the statement:
In other words, videogames TRAIN the players to become better and more effective criminals. I don't know about you, but the thought gives me the creeps.
There is no practical real-world skill that you can learn from GTA. Learn how to car-jack? I keep looking for the Triangle button but can't find it. Firing a gun? Holding R1 to target and X to shoot doesn't do anything to teach you how to fire in real life -- I know, I've done both. The only reason it gives you the creeps is because you've never played to know that it is absolutely nothing like real life and there is no transferable skill that you can learn. Anyone who thought they could practice to become a criminal by playing GTA would find themselves sadly mistaken.
Here's the fact: Millions of people play games like GTA. A few perform violent acts that can in some way be described as being like the game. That's pretty shitty for a game that TRAINS you to be a criminal. In fact, that's the exact same ratio of people who end up being violent criminals in the populace at large. Could it... could it be... that games have nothing to do with causing crime, and are nothing but a scapegoat used as a weak defense by the criminal themselves, and by clueless idiots who are incapable of thinking about the true causes of crime?
Yes.
t-shirts and cutoffs aren't very comfortable compared to well-made, ironed clothing
Pfft. Says you. If you find a button-down collar shirt you have to iron every morning (or whatever the hell you meant by "well-made, ironed"), then wear it. I find little to be more comfortable than a cotton t-shirt and a pair of shorts. If you, the self-acknowledged sloppily-dressed engineer, are too lazy to dress in a way that you feel would both make managers think more highly of you and make you more comfortable, that's your problem.
And yeah, there are things that aren't worth my time. Like ironing a shirt that I would be less comfortable wearing.
I was fairly certain I didn't imply that dress code had anything to do with causing IBMs turnaround, but apparently that was a bad assumption. The dress code change occured during IBMs re-evaluation of their strategy, said re-evaluation being the historical backdrop for the matter of discussion, that being dress codes.
The point was that this change in dress code is clearly not harming the adoption of IBM products.
IBM used to make their techies wear suits. Then, during the dark period in the late 80s and early 90s when they were struggling to reinvent themselves, they had a revelation: Business-type customers like to see people in "professional" business atire, but this only matters if the customer actually sees you. The rest of the time, it is fine to dress comfortably. Thus sales, marketing, and any techie who happened to be interacting with the business-type customers would wear a suit and tie, everyone else wore what they wanted. Bam! Problem solved! And since then, the "sandal and ponytail set" hasn't stopped IBM from making sales, now have they?
So the fundamental problem, if there really is a real problem behind the article, is that the wrong people are speaking to each other. If you're trying to make an OSS business case to the business-types, then yeah you need a business-type person dressed in business-type clothing to do the talking. If you aren't a for-profit organization who can hire such a person to do the talking for you, then why do you give a fuck if the business types listen or not? The techies will listen to you, and you'll get in like most OSS has gotten in -- via the back door in the server room. If you are a for-profit, then why do you need a cnet article to tell you to "dress for success" and hire a marketing person instead of sending your be-sandled techies out into the field?
I don't know, this whole thing smacks of misdirection. He says it's the poor dress code that's causing the slow adoption, but then makes it sound more like it's politics and "IT leadership" (interpreted to mean some kind of management, shouldn't be wearing sandals) that are to blame. It sounds to me like the real reasons for the slow adoption of OSS have nothing to do with "sandals and ponytails", and "OMG RMS dresses looks like a dirty hippy!" is just an excuse.