Uh, no. You need to check out the state you work in. In Missouri, you can quit, work for a competitor or start a competing business.
I think you misunderstood. In every state you may do those things, unless you have signed a document otherwise. It is quite common for these types of contracts to be signed before employment - hell, even companies like Blockbuster do it to their hourly employees (i.e. technically you can't go work for Movie Gallery after, if they choose to follow up). Or are you saying that those types of contracts are not valid in your state?
I don't think you truly understand what Sony has in mind for the PS3...This is why it's a bit strange when people single it out for games. It means profits in all sorts of other ways for Sony.
LOL, I understand exactly "what Sony has in mind", but I just don't think that translates well into reality. You didn't need to go over the marketing PR with me - we all know it. The question is - do people care, and or want it?
It's not strange for a game machine to be called one. The system comes with a game controller, all accessories are for playing games...Sony may want to make it a "media hub", but until it can replace a TiVo I don't think the mass majority of the public gives a rats ass. The essential, main function of a PS3 is to play games, no matter what Sony has promised you in the future. The point is, yes, Sony wants to make it more, but the question posed was, how many of those gamers are big Blu-ray software buyers, and how many bought it for the gaming features. Sony's online is a joke right now, so all that pie-in-the-sky stuff you are talking about is just that - Sony's dreams that have yet to materialize.
So yeah, PS3 is just a gaming machine right now that also plays Blu-Ray movie discs. People make this big deal about more of them than HD-DVD players, and my reason for posting was to point out that EVERY SINGLE HD-DVD player sold has been for watching movies (the XBOX 360 add-on or stand-alone player). The same CANNOT be said for the PS3. That's why I don't think it's fair to say, "Blu-Ray is winning because there are more Blu-Ray capable players." The answer is - we just don't know.
The very fact that Blu-Ray sales are triple HD-DVD has very much to do with the fact that the PS3 contains a player built-in. It has very much to do with the fact that even some people bought the PS3 as a cheap Blu-Ray player and not just a console. Clearly the attach rate is higher for Blu-Ray or sales wouldn't have shot up so high. That people are not required to buy some monstrous strap on for their 360 to do it which in itself would put a lot of people off the idea.
I don't think that logic follows. A minute number of stand-alone Blu-Ray players has sold (25K was the last number I heard), and I just don't see PS3 sales as de-facto evidence that Blu-Ray is winning. Of course Blu-Ray sales jumped after Christmas, because I'm sure some new PS3 users were out buying software. But will it continue? Or were they just looking for something to use the PS3 for in between decent games coming out? There were very few Blu-Ray players before a Christmas, and so of course the software will see a jump from initial adopters. It's not hard to be impressive when you start with essentially zero. There was a surge in software, but what remains to be seen is if it lasts or if it was just people buying between games.
Blu-Ray has uses outside of movies for consoles. For starters it makes games harder to pirate and distribute. Secondly it means games can contain more content, or more locales, or be more optimal for better gameplay. And by using Blu-Ray for games Sony lowers production and distribution costs for Blu-Ray movies since they are made on the same kit.
LOL, Sony has really sold you, haven't they? It's clear I'm having a discussion with a fan - for the record, I own neither an XBOX 360 nor a PS3. It's clear you understand the company line that Sony wants people to believe; problem is, just because they cross their fingers and wish real hard doesn't mean it's going to come true. You really believe all the hype, huh?
You lost me with your "more secure and less easy to pirate" comment. Yeah, I hear consumers say all the time, "Gee, this format is more advantageous because it cannot be backed up, copied, or pirated!" The only people who are happy if it's "more secure" are the people making money off of it - it's certainly not a selling point fo
Oh please.
Yahoo don't pays the bills at Flickr. The users are paying bills for both Flickr AND Yahoo !!
And Yahoo wants to blackmail those people.
I'm and oldschool and dont want to switch. I'm paying for my flick account, and after 15 march will be not able to log into my paid account ? Thats simply crazy.
I'll see your "Oh please," and raise you a "get over yourself".
The argument that "I will not be able to log into..." is simply a lie. Yes, you will be able to login, once you either use an existing, or create a new, Yahoo! ID. It will take you only a few seconds, and costs you nothing.
I understand the "principle" here, but also see it for what it is : people who are set in their ways and have this big chip over their shoulder about a stupid login ID. Gives you something to cry and bitch about.
Nothing about the quality of service is changing, just the stupid text string you type to login. Oooh, the horror!
Again, as I said above, if you don't like it - STOP USING IT. That's your choice. But the crying and whining over absolutely nothing other than your bad attitude about an extremely simple change just makes you look silly. It looks like a little kid who won't eat their sandwich because Mommie cut it in half through the middle instead of diagonally - inconsequential, not a big deal, and you just look like a brat for making a stink.
Two weeks is pretty short, IMHO. AFAIK, in Germany you have to let them know three months before leaving.
BTW: Wasn't there this case between Microsoft and Google, when some search engine specialist was hired by Google?
1. In the U.S., two-weeks is the customary length of notice for non-contract employees. A common phrase is, "They can't fault you, you gave them your two-weeks." Of course there are exceptions for people who are extremely unique in their position, but two-weeks is the customary time frame, and employers must pay you for those two full-weeks even if they choose to not let you stay after you give your notice.
2. I believe in the Google issue there was actually a contract saying one could not go work for a competitor, or start your own company in the same field (or some variation of such). Those are pretty common, but has nothing to do with two-weeks notice but what you do after you leave the company. These don't always hold up well - especially if the person didn't have any proprietary knowledge that will benefit the other company.
3. To the OP, all I can say is your company already screwed up by threatening a lawsuit. Unless there is some big info being left out, of course, they cannot sue you for quitting your job, UNLESS you signed a no-compete contract. The VP tells you this? There is some shady stuff right there - no one but HR should even discuss such things.
Sounds like you are getting out just in time. Again, if the situation is as described, I don't think there is anything to worry about - sounds like a couple of people who don't know what their legal rights are and aren't were trying to scare you. Now you just need to decide - do you just wash your hands of the place, or make sure that the jerks who tried to pull this crap on you are known for what they are.
I just have a feeling, though, that SOMETHING isn't being fully disclosed here.
Look, I like reading/. for the tech/science news. It's a very valuable tool for that. But, honestly, when every other article is another Vista-bashing FUD extravanza, this site really loses its respectability.
This site is supposed to be about news and technical scoops not about personal opinion or flame wars. Get a grip. We like different operating systems. All the other ones suck. Let's move on and talk about something interesting.
I think you are being a bit sensitive here, at least on this specific story.
MS is selling bad products and telling customers "sorry, don't know when you'll get your paid product". I'm sure that some of the idiots who bought the "ultimate edition" did so expressly for this feature.
I'm sorry, but MS is bringing on all the bad publicity themselves. You can't go to an online store that sells computer products today and not see a dozen shitty tries to get you to be excited about Vista, which does absolutely nothing at this point for the average consumer but take your time and make your existing apps/devices a bitch to reconfigure.
If MS wasn't touting this as some miracle OS that everyone was eagerly anticipating, then people wouldn't be making fun of it. Regardless, though, again that's not the case here - any company giving out bad product keys is/. material, and the fact that it's MS just makes it even worse.
The thing is, there are 100,000 PS3s selling in the US alone per week, plus maybe 5000 other BD players. The market for Blu-Ray is just increasing enormously and the HD-DVD market isn't. And Japan is almost entirely Blu-Ray. And Europe is neither (you'll be lucky to see BD or HD-DVDs outside of flagship stores, or airports) but will become instantly Blu-Ray when the PS3 launches.
The problem with that argument is that the PS3 is not a Blu-Ray movie player, first and foremost : it is a gaming system.
The fact of the matter is that, yes, there are more Blu-Ray capable machines at the moment. But what is of question is how many of those machines is being used largely for watching films. By contrast, every single XBOX 360 add-on is exclusively for watching films, as MS has explicitly stated that no games will come out this generation that utilize the add-on. When you keep that in mind, the supposed install base numbers look much closer. Beyond that, it must be recognized how tiny the numbers we are talking about anyway - neither of them are signifigant at all at this point in terms of mass consumers.
The truth is, the format war is far from over. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are both going to remain niche formats for quite some time. Just because Sony shoe-horned a Blu-Ray player into the PS3 that most of their target audience would have bought anyway, does not a format war win. Especially since PS3's are rotting on the shelves (my local BB has signs up all over saying, "WE HAVE THEM!" and the signs are actually getting dusty they've been up for so long...), their impact over the life of the formats just may not be that signifigant.
Remember the race between the turtle and the hare?
I wouldn't call this "abandoning" anybody. They're asking users to use a (free) Yahoo login. It's not what I'd call a big deal. Yahoo did this when they acquired Launch (launch.com). Why would this bother anybody other than the tinfoil-hat types? What am I missing?
You aren't missing anything. I'm actually embarrassed for/. because of the obvious slant of the title. They aren't "abandoning" anyone, and it's just a bunch of disgruntled people who like to complain about the little irrelevant crap in life while ignoring the bigger issues of the world.
They aren't restricting access to anyones account, they aren't changing anyones account, they are simply making people get a login and password to conform to the company that now pays the bills at Flickr. This is nothing more than that loser with the other site (why does he care so much about Flickr if his own site is so awesome?) trying to stir up some controversy. And/. fell for it, unfortunately.
Oh no, the bad guys want you to have a Yahoo ID so their system is easier to administrate. Duck and cover. Or go pay for your own webspace elsewhere. Yahoo could have just folded Flickr into Yahoo Photos and dropped the service entirely - stop crying about having to change your login info. The world will continue to spin. Pay attention to the rest of the world and you'll see that there are much bigger fish to fry.
This brings out classic human nature : if Flickr cost $4.99 a month and these changes were made, people would have said, "Well, you get what you pay for." Give someone something for free, slightly change it, and suddenly you are the evil enemy.
Anyone who complained about this should quit flickr out of protest. It's the only right thing to do - I'm sure the world won't miss your pics too much; if you have time to sit and cry over this non-issue then I doubt they are very interesting.
I know a pair of housewives who were just becoming Internet users. While kvetching one day over coffee, watching one of their eBay sales, they thought of the "novel" idea of bidding on each other's auctions. They thought they were quite clever; the seller would log out, the other housewife would log in, bid, then logout.
eBay quickly sent them a warning. They did not cancel the accounts, but threatened to do it if they were caught doing so again. eBay had traced their IPs.
Moral of the story? If you are going to shill bid, have someone do it from another location. There isn't a tinkers damn they can do if, say, your friend down the street bids a lot (as long as you don't mess with "cancelling" bids and such).
I've seen a few people gloating about sellers who end up "buying their own item", but I think they miss the strategy there. eBay is a finicky place - the same item might sell one day for $120, and the next day for $40. There are 100's of factors, from the auction end time to the day of the week. eBay fees are not as high as some people seem to think - and in many cases it's worth it to pay $4 or $5 in eBay fees to avoid selling an item for much less than you want for it. It's a gamble - sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but if you're only out a few bucks as opposed to selling an item for nothing, some people may find it worth it.
Personally I don't shill bid. I have no need to. I sell my items at a BIN price, and if it isn't bought it isn't sold. However, since eBay is set up to not only allow but really encourage it, I don't really think it's going away. As long as you aren't doing it from the same IP (as the housewives in my example) then there really is very little eBay could ever do about it.
...most schools won't let you cite encyclopedias in the first place anyway.
I'm a huge fan and contributor to Wikipedia and I love it. However, it has it's place, and serious academic research is not it, just like any other encyclopedia. They stopped letting me use them to cite sources in middle school, and certainly by college it wasn't even a notion (print or otherwise).
If you look at a few studies, you'll see that it has been said that there are more errors on average in a "real" encyclopedia (Britanica, etc.) than Wikipedia, but that's beside the point. The point is, an encyclopedia by it's very nature is meant to be a brief summary to give you a basic idea of the topic and to give you a place to step off to do real research.
This is why Wikipedia is useful for cultural reference, but not academic work. For example, the other day I wanted to know where the term "prodigal son" came from. It was mentioned in a film I was watching, I had heard it before, and had a vague idea of what it meant, but no real frame of reference. Well, wouldn't you know, there's a whole Wikipedia article about it, and my curiosity was met. I now have a decent, general grasp of where it comes from, could probably explain it half-intelligently to someone else, and I am just the tiniest bit more informed.
That's what Wikipedia is great for. Now, on the other hand, if I were writing a paper about the term "prodigal son", it would be a joke for me to reference the Wiki-entry. It's akin to copying someone else's homework. Now, it's perfectly okay to go and read it, and to look at the references provided and go read them yourself, but expecting a professor to take it seriously when you cite what amounts to a publicly editable database that you yourself could have made the changes to is just lazy, lazy teaching if it occurs.
Encyclopedias have their place in academia, and it's on the bottom rung. I'm actually shocked that they allowed it in the first place. Is this typical? They are a great tool for getting a general overview of a topic, a place to gather basic data for further exploration, but as a reference in an academic work they just don't belong. Encyclopedia's never have, and Wikipedia is no different.
You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.
I know that's a knee-jerk reaction, but I think you miss my entire point : I have an old laptop that runs ME because it is not capable of running XP. All I use it for is to type word processing documents, play music, and occasionally jack it into the internet to check email on the road (but rarely use it online). So, should I just throw it out because the laptop isn't capable of running anything better than ME, and I don't have the time to learn to deal with Linux on it since the laptop meets my needs as it stands right now?
See, that's the point here, that if something isn't broke (yes, I know that in general as on OS ME is pretty weak, but IMHO it is still better than Win98 since this machine cannot run XP) why get rid of it? Besides, the laptop has sentimental value at this point (covered in old stickers), but again, that's irrelevant because it's still useful to me. The machine handles all the tasks I ask it to - and it's still got a beautiful LCD screen and even plays ROMs to boot.
This relates exactly to the topic at hand - people upgrading to Vista, and when. The computer market has grown beyond the "I need the newest best because some PC mag, blog, tech head, etc. told me this was the bestest!" I know people who still use machines with Win98 - do your grandparents who only use a computer to send and check email really need any more? These aren't people who are going to be hacked because their OS is insecure - they literally only email grandkids on the thing.
If Vista is going to work for you, more power to you! I honestly hope you enjoy it, and that it works out for you as you wish. For me, however, no application I use, or task I use my PC to complete, is going to be any better/faster/quicker if I upgrade to Vista. I just am not tempted in the least by "better! new! new!" unless it can do something for me just for the sake of being "cutting edge".
I've got enough to do these days without installing OS's for fun if they aren't going to add any functionality that is useful for me. I don't collaborate on projects with people on other continents, all my media already runs great over my home network, and I don't need that fancy new holographic super-conductive whatever interface that you only get on the expensive editions of Vista. I'm sure it's a nice OS and all, but unless I can add a single checkmark in the "what will this do for me" column, I'm going to hold-off on Vista until I get a free copy from MS on a new system - and maybe not even then.
The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.
And the exact reason even a "power user" like myself isn't even entertaining the idea of upgrading to Vista anytime soon. When I say "power user", I mean a consumer with above-average computer skills, but I'm not a professional. I fix friends PC's, but I don't build them. I can make just about any OS or program do what I want, but I don't write them. So my opinion comes from being a user who does understand both sides of the equation to a certain extent.
As someone who does not operate systems in a business environment, I can't speak for the usefulness of Vista in those situations. However, for my personal use and the tasks I use computers for, I can't find a single compelling reason to move to Vista. Not a single positive, but many negatives; I'm still running some very useful hardware that is on USB1.1 and/or has to run on legacy mode on XP, and I have everything finally running perfectly as I want it - why in hell would I want to upgrade to an OS just to get all my old devices that are still perfectly good and useful to work all over again?
There is just no reason I can see to disrupt my life with a new OS that is going to be even more of a system hog than XP is. I know the conventional wisdom is to think, "Gee, guess it's time to upgrade to a new PC," but since I have no other reason to do so that would just be silly. I burn DVDs - my system does that flawlessly (especially since I just got a new LG external burner that is a Godsend on sale for $75). I use BitTorrent. I browse the web and check e-mail. I edit video and audio. None of this is going to get any easier via Vista, and in fact as outlined above much of it will get more difficult.
XP isn't going anywhere in my house. Hell, I still have a laptop running ME because it's the newest OS it can handle - but it still does the basic tasks I need just fine and it will continue to serve me for years to come (I've had it since 1997). Sure, the big PC gamers will have to upgrade eventually, but since I just play consoles these days (XBOX360 and Wii) that's not a reason for me.
MS is throwing the same party for Vista it threw for XP - better, more secure, blah, blah...we've been here, done that, and learned our lessons. All that said, as a consumer the fact that the first SP is already in the works makes me distrust the product even more, and further solidifies my choice that Vista is going to remain on the horizon for me instead of in my home for a lot longer than MS would like.
"It's amazing, isn't it? How you, as a "game developer" are more concerned about disk space than about gameplay? How many CDs did Pac Man fill? How many times did you have to swap cartridges playing through The Legend of Zelda? Were you frustrated when you scratched the disk of your Super Mario Brothers 3 cartridge?
Gameplay has stagnated in the past 10 years - since the Playstation era. There have been no new innovations in gameplay in that time, only improved graphics. The only games which come to mind with innovative gameplay are games like Guitar Hero with its specialty hardware. Of course, Wii is looking to change all that."
AMEN, brother!
I got bored with graphics a long time ago. "Weee, pretty!" is not what most people are looking for. The gaming industry has gotten so narrow because it keeps concentrating on the same crap.
The "developer" who posted above about how DVD is just not big enough is just full of crap...if you can't make an awesome game with 9GB (a dual-layer, not dual-sided, DVD) then you have more problems than you realize.
You know what I've been playing the last couple of years? Old NES/SNES/Genesis games. I own an XBOX and a GC, and every time I go to the store I try SO HARD to find a game I want to buy, but it's all the same derrarative crap. On top of it all, most games with these "super duper" graphics have SHITTY gameplay and SHITTY control.
The PS3 will sell to that small segment of the population that has a thousand bucks to blow on a console and a few games in one fell swoop, but that's not the majority.
There is a HUGE untapped market out there of disenfranchised gamers like myself who the industry has lost, and those they never had at all.
The reason the Wii is going to outsell them all isn't because of it's innovation in terms of control, but the same reason the NDS is kicking the PSP's ass : the games are fun as shit, have graphics good enough to satisfy the majority of us (especially when seen on the DS Lite's amazing screen), and it's a unique experience where almost all games (even the complex ones) can be played for as little as 30 seconds if that's all the time you have. You just shut the thing and it comes back right where you were. On the other hand, PSP just tried to port PS/PS2 games...nothing "new", and most people don't have hours to get into those types of games on the road anyway.
The only issue the Wii is going to have is marketing outside the gaming community; anyone but Sony-apologists have realized where the industry is heading, and stupid, unreasonably complex games with pretty graphics and cut scenes that take up 30GB on a Blu-Ray disc are going to be in the minority while everyone else who isn't duped by pretty pictures are playing the FUN games with graphics better than most normal people care about anyway.
Sony is an embarassment, because they are making the same mistake they always do; they want it ALL, and by pushing their proprietary format they are just confusing a consumer who doesn't give a shit in the first place. Average-joe is just happy with DVD in all formats...they won't be fooled into upgrading because Sony tells them they need it.
"He makes it sound like people are checking in because they love their characters like they love their kids. I think a more accurate assessment is that they're checking in to make sure they aren't getting ripped off.
Uh, have you ever played an MMO before?
Many people who get freakishly into it do "love" their characters in that way - it's very scary. The "ripped off" part is just a piece of it; it all boils down for their love of "living" in a world that does not exist and mommy/daddy/girlfriend (let's face it, we can leave the last one out as anyone who is "into" an MMO enough to pay someone to play it for them prolly doesn't have a GF) can't bother them while they strike with the Enchanted Red Hammer of Boorishness.
However, this whole topic is just astounding. I'm a casual MMO player (played 3 or 4 of them), and anyone that is so frigging retarded that they PAY someone to play a videogame for them is just beyond help. Paying someone to play a game for you? Wow...that's just, incredible to normal people.
If you don't like they game, not only are you not speaking with your wallet by leaving the MMO, but you are spending MORE for some smacktard to sit and play for you...just so you can play through the last few levels?
What a crazy world, when people are so goddamn lazy they can't even click a mouse for themselves.
It's all so ludicrous. I can't believe that these buffoons don't get laughed out of the boardroom when they try to invent ways they are "losing" money.
We keep these asshats in fancy cars and hookers, and they don't want me to be able to go to a website to see if I heard a lyric right or not?
I think I should start saying that I'm losing over a billion dollars a year because each U.S. adult isn't sending me a $5 bill on my birthday. That's the same thing to me as a record company whining about lost revenue - it's nothing they have in the first place, and nothing they can prove anyone would have bought anyway, so they never "lost" anything.
These fucks will never be satisified until we have to pay-per-listen, and an increasing scale based on the volume we play it at.
What's funny, is that there are no new artists out there that even make me want to "pirate"; no new music could EVER come out and I'd be happy with what I've already got. Same with movies - enough have been made in the last century that they could never produce another one after today and you'd still never run out of new films to watch in your lifetime.
I don't support the RIAA (the more they tighten their grip, the more I don't buy CDs, it's that simple), and I've gone from seeing 50-100 films a year in the theater to once a year, and Netflixing most everything else I watch and occasionally picking up one of those $5 DVDs at Wal-Mart. The more they act like spoiled children, the less business they get from me. As more people start waking up to the sickening, insane, beyond greedy, shameful way in which the record and film industries are run (and no, the artists aren't losing a dime - because said execs regularly fuck them out of everything) the less people will spend money on their crap. They can't keep up the "we're losing billions" fallacy forever.
Self-fufilling prophecy. The more they say invent they are losing, the more they actually will loose from pissed off people like me who just refuse to support what should amount to criminal activity when these guys screw everyone ten ways from Sunday (from the artists to the fans), then have the absolute nerve to call themselves the victims.
Guys like this that bash Wikipedia are laughably ignorant; they don't seem to know what an encylopedia actually is in the first place.
As any librarian will tell you, an encyclopedia is NOT a "be all, end all" resource. It's meant to give you a brief overview and a place to start further research. In fact, once most school kids hit junior high, most good teachers won't even allow you to use an encylopedia as a reference in a paper, and if they do allow it they limit it severely.
Wikipedia fills these needs, and the self-policing works great in my experience. If you are doing heavy academic research and are bitching about Wikipedia being unreliable, you are a shitty researcher; you should know that an encylopedia, especially at that level (post-High School and professional researchers), is not a reliable tool for absolute statements you are going to hinge your work on.
Wikipedia is great for most casual users. Watching "Gilmore Girls" and hearing a Elizabeth Taylor/Mike Todd reference and not knowing what it meant, all one has to do is head over to Wiki and get a nice little overview. If you are interested further, then you can check out google and actual books. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a political movement or something like that referenced somewhere that I simply didn't understand at first, and Wiki is superb for sating enough curiousity.
It baffles me that people could be "against" something like Wikipedia; send your ire to something actually damaging like that MySpace whorehouse stuff going on. Anyone that tries to use Wikipedia - OR ANY INTERNET SOURCE - as some sort of absolute and risks their job/reputation/etc. by using the information is an idiot and, again, does not know what an encylopedia really is.
Long live Wikipedia - and may the bad researchers who criticize them find jobs outside of the research realm, because they obviously suck at it if they bitch about the next generation of tool (Wiki versus paper encylopedias) when it seems they didn't even understand the most elementary things about what it is quickly replacing.
Good points, and at this point I'd argue any PC bought in the past couple years that was decent to begin with can do most consumer-level video/photo/audio work. I have a 5-year old VIAO desktop (1GHz/1GB RAM) on it's own little stand just for video, and I crunch out DV footage on it all the time. Is it the fastest in the world? No, but since I'm not trying to surf the web or anything else on it while it's going it does it in an acceptable time. Most consumers only do this a few times a year at most anyway, to compile vacation and holiday type DVDs for friends.
And guess what I'm writing this on? A 1998 Gateway Solo notebook (233MHz, 64MB RAM). I have it in my living room on the coffee table for casual internet browsing (looking things up on the IMDB during viewing, for example) and for writing when the mood strikes me. It still works great, and the screen is still gorgeous (in some ways, nicer than some newer ones I see). It's slightly heftier than new notebooks, but it works great for what I use it for (as you can see). The only caveat? Since I can't run XP on it there is no driver made for my newer printer, so I have to email the stuff to myself and print it from my main machine (2 year old, 3GHz, 2GB RAM).
Older PC recycling that that is becoming more and more common, because average consumers may not be tech savvy but they are value-conscious. If it's still working for them, they don't see a reason to upgrade. Those people that drove the market the last few years have no compelling reason to do so.
Consumers are holding off purchases...because they don't need new computers. The processor is the last thing most "Best Buy"-level consumers need to even think about replacing these days, and with upgradability so easy for the other major components the need has simply leveled out.
We've reached a threshold where some people aren't going to need any "better" computers for quite some time. For the average user, once you've got a nice flat screen, a nice big HD, and a reasonably fast computer, that's all they are ever going to need to email, burn CDs, and browse the web. The people that have driven the market the last few years (newer and/or first time buyers) are not falling to the "new box every 24 months" syndrome that felt like the norm before.
Add to that how easy things like storage and RAM are to upgrade these days (especially the former, aided by the convenience of USB), and most of the casual users (i.e. one or possibly two PC's in the home) I know are quite happy with what they've got. Unless you are an extreme gamer, there is little reason to upgrade. Same reason people don't upgrade Office every year (if they still use it...); to most people Office '97 does everything they'd ever want to do and then some. The only people upgrading are IT departments and corporations that just like to spend money. Very few industries need state-of-the-art tech, and even fewer individuals do.
The individuals are learning, because they aren't buying. At least that's what it seems like to me.
"And yet I noticed no mention of this 'wonder product', nor even a link to your business in your profile."
LOL, and I see even less about you than that, since you are Anonymous Coward.:)
No "wonder product" for me, the portion you quoted was simply the distillation of what I've learned, not a singular description of how I'm doing it at the moment. By "a good product to sell", I mean not the modly clothes out of your basement (even if they *DO* still have the tags on them, LOL), no product in particular (at least for me).
As to what products I sell personally, I started with stuff I already had. I've been moving dozens of boxes around since college and finally cleaned them out - from MIB action figures to vintage books, anything I didn't really want any more I got rid of. Then once I started learning how eBay "worked" by exhausting that supply, I looked for products that weren't already deluged with sellers (i.e., don't start trying to sell cell phone accessories...), or that were especially good bargains at retail and resold them.
For instance, I'll go to Ciruit City and find some video game accessory inexplicably marked down to a ridiculous price (like $2.99 for a game shark-type device), and resell it for $20-50 on eBay (many sales like that are reigonal, or when an item is stopping being manufactured, so people in other locations that are already sold out or never had the sale push demand). I go to Circuit City, Best Buy, Staples, stores like that every week or two anyway, so I was already seeing these types of bargains (it's not something I go out intentionally to do).
Lately I've found reselling DVDs, especially to non-US buyers, to be extremely profitable. Multi-standard DVD players and TV's are much more common in other countries, and they have to pay local importer specialty shops tons to get NTSC, or Reigion 1, exclusive titles (especially certain genres of boxed set). They pay huge premiums for the service (sometimes double to triple what they can pay to have it shipped and pay the duties themselves). They'd rather buy off of eBay, especially since places like Amazon won't ship non-reigion local DVDs to them.
Now, if you go to sell a title there are already 36 copies of out there for buy-it-now's of $8.88, then no, you won't make any cash. So it's not fool-proof, you have to actually figure out what is rare, accquire the product here (new or used), and get it up there. And by maintaining a simple list out there via free web hosting, I was able to list the titles available and take direct orders once the eBay contact was made.
That's just one example. One I'm sharing because I've started selling something totally different in the past week or two and I'm winding down with the DVDs for now, I think. That new one I won't share - have to keep some secrets.;)
It's funny, because I would never define myself as someone who makes a "living" off of eBay, until I read this article and actually realized it's really what is happening. I left my last job expecting to at least take the summer off and wholly live off of my savings, but each week I found myself being able to get by just with eBay. I don't expect it to last forever, and I have no designs of becoming a "power seller", but at the moment it's working for me.
Making millions? Hard. Making enough to live on? Not so hard if you have a mind for business and something to sell that isn't your moldy used clothes from the basement.
I do it just about every week (make a living off of eBay). I left a shitty office job with a decent chunk of savings in my bank account, deciding to live off of my savings until I needed to find another shitty office job to subsidize my writing and art ambitions.
It's a couple of months later, and with the exception of one week where I had to take a few bucks out of savings, eBay has paid for my gas, groceries, cable, etc. And the week after I had to dip in I was able to replace the money with an eBay surplus.
People complain about eBay and PayPal fees, but don't seem to get that eBay is providing the world's stage for you; it's the best damn advertising you can get. Yes, eBay has some ridiculous policies, but there are ways to work with them, and around them. For example, when I send out a package I include an enclosure with my name and website and an invitation for a future order. As previously stated by other/. posters, eBay doesn't like this because they loose out on a later fee. However, there isn't a tinker's damn they can do about a piece of paper in the package I send out saying, "Thanks so much for being a customer, if you need anything else..."
In fact, that's how the lion's share of my large orders come from. Someone buys one off of eBay, then comes back and spends a couple of hundred bucks with me, off eBay. I guess someone would say that that wasn't really making money off of eBay, but I disagree; I would never have found that customer otherwise.
As to PayPal, you just have to be careful with them. They are HEAVILY slanted toward the buyer, and their fees can be noticable. However, it is so convenient it is worth it for me. I have a PayPal debit card that I use for everything (and get 1% cash back instantly with each purchase, which helps ease the pain) and I never have to bother with money orders and checks and waiting and all that B.S. For orders under twenty bucks I don't worry about it, but I get delivery confirmation on anything above that to protect myself as much as possible.
Now, I completely realize that this could dry up tomorrow, that eBay sales and the follow-up sales won't last forever, but right now it sure is nice to be working no more than 90 minutes a day and making enough to live off of. I get great pleasure in making nice packages for people to recieve as well, and I have time to live my life instead of living in a cubicle. What it takes to make it on eBay is to understand how it works, and to know what will give you the best profits. Selling old clothes for.50 cents each from your basement is going to be more trouble than it's worth (though, somehow, you see people doing this all the time), but if you actually have a product to sell you can really make a go of it.
I guess the moral is don't quit your day job...unless you have the savings to back it up in case it doesn't work out and you have a decent mind for business and a good product to sell.
I bought an XBOX in early '02, only because the "Buffy The Vampire" slayer video game had gone from multi-platform to XBOX exclusive. Up until then, there hadn't been a single game that interested me. I've never had any PS, and my last console before that was a N64 that I had sold to someone a few years back. I only gamed on the PC at that point (from a youth growing up playing Nintendo and Sega).
Over the past four years, I've bought less than five XBOX games; frankly, most of them just didn't interest me. The two Simpsons games were fun, and so was Goldeneye. But even as an adult with a decent amount of disposable income, I just could rarely feel good about plunking down $50 for a game unless I was assured I'd like it.
Cut to now, and I had no idea how good the used XBOX market is. I went to a Gamestop, and games less than two years old I could get for as little as like $7. I bought "Alias", a game from 2004, and absolutely love it; I only paid $8. It's just as fun now as if I had run out and bought it two years ago.
I guess I just grew out of that "I need to have the newest now or my brain will explode" mentality. I didn't see the LOTR trilogy until last summer because I hate watching a film and then a directors cut, so I waited until it was all out on DVD in the extended versions to watch them all at once. The same holds true for games, as I can sit down and play "Super Mario Brothers 3" and still have a really fun experience.
Nintendo has the right idea, offering it's library on the Virtual Console. The PS3 is going to be a high-end toy for those who need to say they own the "newest of the new", but there are thousands of games out there, from the Virtual Console line-up (NES, SNES, N64, Gen, TG16) to the libraries of XBOX, PSOne, PSTwo, and Gamecube games already out there, just waiting to be played. And although it's great to appriciate exceptional, revolutionary graphics, for most gamers once you get past the hype it's really not the be-all-end all; it's how much fun the game is. I think Sony (and to a lesser extent MS) is forgetting that.
I opened up an AOL account last fall because I was going on vacation and I needed dial-up service. When I called a month later, I literally had to yell and scream at them to get them to cancel my account.
"But sir, have you tried our (insert name of useless feature)? Perhaps that would entice you to stay."
"No, thank you, just cancel."
"But sir, what about all our exclusive AOL music content?"
"No, thank you, please just cancel my account immediately.
(almost ten minutes later)
"But sir, didn't you enjoy our email service?"
"Listen, cancel this fucking account right now. Do you understand English? I want this account cancelled, and I want it done now!"
That finally did the trick. But I'm not going to spend my time on the phone with a bunch of asswipes (who speak perfect English, BTW, at least the one I had) who pretend they don't hear me say CANCEL. It was a huge mistake to deal with AOL on my part, I should have known better, but these worthless shits still have no right to act this way. I work on the phone a great deal, and it takes a lot to get me pissy and swearing - unfortunately, that's the ONLY THING that works with these jerks.
Best idea, stay away from AOL entirely...Next time I "Need" dial-up for something I'll just go without.
The only reason companies are afraid of downloads is because they know it's going to cut into their sixty-dollar off-the-shelf-games.
Just like articles where some publishers/companies discount so-called "retro-gaming" as being insignifigant in their eyes.
Well, I spent about an hour yesterday playing "Super Mario Brothers 3", and it was just as fun now as it was fifteen years ago. All of the suits making comments like this are so out of touch it's almost comical. They keep going after that shrinking "gotta have the newest, bestest, prettiest game NOW!" market and fail to realize there are tens of millions of us who gave up on gaming years ago because we were sick of all the "shitty but pretty" games where pretty pictures rank far above gameplay.
If only these guys would realize that spending enough to make a feature film on a game just isn't necessary, that paying 50 artists for every 1 actual game mechanics programmer is silly.
They need to look outside the box. Problem is, they created the box, and seem so lost in it that I don't know if anything is going to demonstrate otherwise for them until the box just busts apart and disintergrates.
I've played Brain Age and it's fine - the microphone hardware doesn't care what language you speak in, LOL.;-) It's the reigon of the game you play that is.
As to voiding your warranty, you are absolutely correct and that was something I meant to mention in my original reply. That was the other deciding factor for me, and could end up being very important.
The only difference is color. U.S. has "polar white" only right now, whereas Japan has white, light blue, and dark navy blue, and the upcoming Euro release will be Jet Black.
At first I thought that was a reason to import one (they run about $200ish on eBay), but I'm glad I decided against it and just went for the US model. While asthetically I might have prefered black or the dark navy, the new slick finish is great but it takes fingerprints like nobody's business. Since I keep a sunglasses shami around to clean the screens anyway it's not a huge problem, but on the white you can't see them unless you hold it up to a light and really look for them. I have a friend who imported one of the dark navy ones and the fingerprints show up much more. It'd be a nightmare if you are OCD like me and would be cleaning it every time you sat it down.
That said, it's the best purchase I've made in a long time. I am so totally floored by the quality of the screens...games that I finished long ago (Super Princess Peach, Mario and Luigi : Partners In Time) look like brand new games. The colors are incredibly vibrant (the yellows and greens that were there the whole time but I never saw astounded me), and the backgrounds pop out and the detail is so much more apparent. I never really wanted to admit that I noticed it before, but the regular DS has very muddy looking screens. I'm only running on brightness level 3 (out of 4) and it's literally like night and day when comparing side-by-side with the normal DS.
Thankfully, I've found a use for my old one - it's going to keep Brain Age in my living room where I can access it easily when watching TV and such; now when people visit I'll be able to play the great two-player games (that, thankfully, only require one cart unlike the old days where everyone needed their own copy) with them instead of telling them how if they bought one we could play together.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstood. In every state you may do those things, unless you have signed a document otherwise. It is quite common for these types of contracts to be signed before employment - hell, even companies like Blockbuster do it to their hourly employees (i.e. technically you can't go work for Movie Gallery after, if they choose to follow up). Or are you saying that those types of contracts are not valid in your state?
AE
LOL, I understand exactly "what Sony has in mind", but I just don't think that translates well into reality. You didn't need to go over the marketing PR with me - we all know it. The question is - do people care, and or want it?
It's not strange for a game machine to be called one. The system comes with a game controller, all accessories are for playing games...Sony may want to make it a "media hub", but until it can replace a TiVo I don't think the mass majority of the public gives a rats ass. The essential, main function of a PS3 is to play games, no matter what Sony has promised you in the future. The point is, yes, Sony wants to make it more, but the question posed was, how many of those gamers are big Blu-ray software buyers, and how many bought it for the gaming features. Sony's online is a joke right now, so all that pie-in-the-sky stuff you are talking about is just that - Sony's dreams that have yet to materialize.
So yeah, PS3 is just a gaming machine right now that also plays Blu-Ray movie discs. People make this big deal about more of them than HD-DVD players, and my reason for posting was to point out that EVERY SINGLE HD-DVD player sold has been for watching movies (the XBOX 360 add-on or stand-alone player). The same CANNOT be said for the PS3. That's why I don't think it's fair to say, "Blu-Ray is winning because there are more Blu-Ray capable players." The answer is - we just don't know.
I don't think that logic follows. A minute number of stand-alone Blu-Ray players has sold (25K was the last number I heard), and I just don't see PS3 sales as de-facto evidence that Blu-Ray is winning. Of course Blu-Ray sales jumped after Christmas, because I'm sure some new PS3 users were out buying software. But will it continue? Or were they just looking for something to use the PS3 for in between decent games coming out? There were very few Blu-Ray players before a Christmas, and so of course the software will see a jump from initial adopters. It's not hard to be impressive when you start with essentially zero. There was a surge in software, but what remains to be seen is if it lasts or if it was just people buying between games.
LOL, Sony has really sold you, haven't they? It's clear I'm having a discussion with a fan - for the record, I own neither an XBOX 360 nor a PS3. It's clear you understand the company line that Sony wants people to believe; problem is, just because they cross their fingers and wish real hard doesn't mean it's going to come true. You really believe all the hype, huh?
You lost me with your "more secure and less easy to pirate" comment. Yeah, I hear consumers say all the time, "Gee, this format is more advantageous because it cannot be backed up, copied, or pirated!" The only people who are happy if it's "more secure" are the people making money off of it - it's certainly not a selling point fo
I'll see your "Oh please," and raise you a "get over yourself".
The argument that "I will not be able to log into..." is simply a lie. Yes, you will be able to login, once you either use an existing, or create a new, Yahoo! ID. It will take you only a few seconds, and costs you nothing.
I understand the "principle" here, but also see it for what it is : people who are set in their ways and have this big chip over their shoulder about a stupid login ID. Gives you something to cry and bitch about.
Nothing about the quality of service is changing, just the stupid text string you type to login. Oooh, the horror!
Again, as I said above, if you don't like it - STOP USING IT. That's your choice. But the crying and whining over absolutely nothing other than your bad attitude about an extremely simple change just makes you look silly. It looks like a little kid who won't eat their sandwich because Mommie cut it in half through the middle instead of diagonally - inconsequential, not a big deal, and you just look like a brat for making a stink.
AE
1. In the U.S., two-weeks is the customary length of notice for non-contract employees. A common phrase is, "They can't fault you, you gave them your two-weeks." Of course there are exceptions for people who are extremely unique in their position, but two-weeks is the customary time frame, and employers must pay you for those two full-weeks even if they choose to not let you stay after you give your notice.
2. I believe in the Google issue there was actually a contract saying one could not go work for a competitor, or start your own company in the same field (or some variation of such). Those are pretty common, but has nothing to do with two-weeks notice but what you do after you leave the company. These don't always hold up well - especially if the person didn't have any proprietary knowledge that will benefit the other company.
3. To the OP, all I can say is your company already screwed up by threatening a lawsuit. Unless there is some big info being left out, of course, they cannot sue you for quitting your job, UNLESS you signed a no-compete contract. The VP tells you this? There is some shady stuff right there - no one but HR should even discuss such things.
Sounds like you are getting out just in time. Again, if the situation is as described, I don't think there is anything to worry about - sounds like a couple of people who don't know what their legal rights are and aren't were trying to scare you. Now you just need to decide - do you just wash your hands of the place, or make sure that the jerks who tried to pull this crap on you are known for what they are.
I just have a feeling, though, that SOMETHING isn't being fully disclosed here.
AE
I think you are being a bit sensitive here, at least on this specific story.
MS is selling bad products and telling customers "sorry, don't know when you'll get your paid product". I'm sure that some of the idiots who bought the "ultimate edition" did so expressly for this feature.
I'm sorry, but MS is bringing on all the bad publicity themselves. You can't go to an online store that sells computer products today and not see a dozen shitty tries to get you to be excited about Vista, which does absolutely nothing at this point for the average consumer but take your time and make your existing apps/devices a bitch to reconfigure.
If MS wasn't touting this as some miracle OS that everyone was eagerly anticipating, then people wouldn't be making fun of it. Regardless, though, again that's not the case here - any company giving out bad product keys is /. material, and the fact that it's MS just makes it even worse.
AE
The problem with that argument is that the PS3 is not a Blu-Ray movie player, first and foremost : it is a gaming system.
The fact of the matter is that, yes, there are more Blu-Ray capable machines at the moment. But what is of question is how many of those machines is being used largely for watching films. By contrast, every single XBOX 360 add-on is exclusively for watching films, as MS has explicitly stated that no games will come out this generation that utilize the add-on. When you keep that in mind, the supposed install base numbers look much closer. Beyond that, it must be recognized how tiny the numbers we are talking about anyway - neither of them are signifigant at all at this point in terms of mass consumers.
The truth is, the format war is far from over. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are both going to remain niche formats for quite some time. Just because Sony shoe-horned a Blu-Ray player into the PS3 that most of their target audience would have bought anyway, does not a format war win. Especially since PS3's are rotting on the shelves (my local BB has signs up all over saying, "WE HAVE THEM!" and the signs are actually getting dusty they've been up for so long...), their impact over the life of the formats just may not be that signifigant.
Remember the race between the turtle and the hare?
AE
You aren't missing anything. I'm actually embarrassed for /. because of the obvious slant of the title. They aren't "abandoning" anyone, and it's just a bunch of disgruntled people who like to complain about the little irrelevant crap in life while ignoring the bigger issues of the world.
They aren't restricting access to anyones account, they aren't changing anyones account, they are simply making people get a login and password to conform to the company that now pays the bills at Flickr. This is nothing more than that loser with the other site (why does he care so much about Flickr if his own site is so awesome?) trying to stir up some controversy. And /. fell for it, unfortunately.
Oh no, the bad guys want you to have a Yahoo ID so their system is easier to administrate. Duck and cover. Or go pay for your own webspace elsewhere. Yahoo could have just folded Flickr into Yahoo Photos and dropped the service entirely - stop crying about having to change your login info. The world will continue to spin. Pay attention to the rest of the world and you'll see that there are much bigger fish to fry.
This brings out classic human nature : if Flickr cost $4.99 a month and these changes were made, people would have said, "Well, you get what you pay for." Give someone something for free, slightly change it, and suddenly you are the evil enemy.
Anyone who complained about this should quit flickr out of protest. It's the only right thing to do - I'm sure the world won't miss your pics too much; if you have time to sit and cry over this non-issue then I doubt they are very interesting.
AE
eBay quickly sent them a warning. They did not cancel the accounts, but threatened to do it if they were caught doing so again. eBay had traced their IPs.
Moral of the story? If you are going to shill bid, have someone do it from another location. There isn't a tinkers damn they can do if, say, your friend down the street bids a lot (as long as you don't mess with "cancelling" bids and such).
I've seen a few people gloating about sellers who end up "buying their own item", but I think they miss the strategy there. eBay is a finicky place - the same item might sell one day for $120, and the next day for $40. There are 100's of factors, from the auction end time to the day of the week. eBay fees are not as high as some people seem to think - and in many cases it's worth it to pay $4 or $5 in eBay fees to avoid selling an item for much less than you want for it. It's a gamble - sometimes you win, sometimes you don't, but if you're only out a few bucks as opposed to selling an item for nothing, some people may find it worth it.
Personally I don't shill bid. I have no need to. I sell my items at a BIN price, and if it isn't bought it isn't sold. However, since eBay is set up to not only allow but really encourage it, I don't really think it's going away. As long as you aren't doing it from the same IP (as the housewives in my example) then there really is very little eBay could ever do about it.
AE
I'm a huge fan and contributor to Wikipedia and I love it. However, it has it's place, and serious academic research is not it, just like any other encyclopedia. They stopped letting me use them to cite sources in middle school, and certainly by college it wasn't even a notion (print or otherwise).
If you look at a few studies, you'll see that it has been said that there are more errors on average in a "real" encyclopedia (Britanica, etc.) than Wikipedia, but that's beside the point. The point is, an encyclopedia by it's very nature is meant to be a brief summary to give you a basic idea of the topic and to give you a place to step off to do real research.
This is why Wikipedia is useful for cultural reference, but not academic work. For example, the other day I wanted to know where the term "prodigal son" came from. It was mentioned in a film I was watching, I had heard it before, and had a vague idea of what it meant, but no real frame of reference. Well, wouldn't you know, there's a whole Wikipedia article about it, and my curiosity was met. I now have a decent, general grasp of where it comes from, could probably explain it half-intelligently to someone else, and I am just the tiniest bit more informed.
That's what Wikipedia is great for. Now, on the other hand, if I were writing a paper about the term "prodigal son", it would be a joke for me to reference the Wiki-entry. It's akin to copying someone else's homework. Now, it's perfectly okay to go and read it, and to look at the references provided and go read them yourself, but expecting a professor to take it seriously when you cite what amounts to a publicly editable database that you yourself could have made the changes to is just lazy, lazy teaching if it occurs.
Encyclopedias have their place in academia, and it's on the bottom rung. I'm actually shocked that they allowed it in the first place. Is this typical? They are a great tool for getting a general overview of a topic, a place to gather basic data for further exploration, but as a reference in an academic work they just don't belong. Encyclopedia's never have, and Wikipedia is no different.
All that said, Long Live the Wiki. :)
AE
I know that's a knee-jerk reaction, but I think you miss my entire point : I have an old laptop that runs ME because it is not capable of running XP. All I use it for is to type word processing documents, play music, and occasionally jack it into the internet to check email on the road (but rarely use it online). So, should I just throw it out because the laptop isn't capable of running anything better than ME, and I don't have the time to learn to deal with Linux on it since the laptop meets my needs as it stands right now?
See, that's the point here, that if something isn't broke (yes, I know that in general as on OS ME is pretty weak, but IMHO it is still better than Win98 since this machine cannot run XP) why get rid of it? Besides, the laptop has sentimental value at this point (covered in old stickers), but again, that's irrelevant because it's still useful to me. The machine handles all the tasks I ask it to - and it's still got a beautiful LCD screen and even plays ROMs to boot.
This relates exactly to the topic at hand - people upgrading to Vista, and when. The computer market has grown beyond the "I need the newest best because some PC mag, blog, tech head, etc. told me this was the bestest!" I know people who still use machines with Win98 - do your grandparents who only use a computer to send and check email really need any more? These aren't people who are going to be hacked because their OS is insecure - they literally only email grandkids on the thing.
If Vista is going to work for you, more power to you! I honestly hope you enjoy it, and that it works out for you as you wish. For me, however, no application I use, or task I use my PC to complete, is going to be any better/faster/quicker if I upgrade to Vista. I just am not tempted in the least by "better! new! new!" unless it can do something for me just for the sake of being "cutting edge".
I've got enough to do these days without installing OS's for fun if they aren't going to add any functionality that is useful for me. I don't collaborate on projects with people on other continents, all my media already runs great over my home network, and I don't need that fancy new holographic super-conductive whatever interface that you only get on the expensive editions of Vista. I'm sure it's a nice OS and all, but unless I can add a single checkmark in the "what will this do for me" column, I'm going to hold-off on Vista until I get a free copy from MS on a new system - and maybe not even then.
AE
And the exact reason even a "power user" like myself isn't even entertaining the idea of upgrading to Vista anytime soon. When I say "power user", I mean a consumer with above-average computer skills, but I'm not a professional. I fix friends PC's, but I don't build them. I can make just about any OS or program do what I want, but I don't write them. So my opinion comes from being a user who does understand both sides of the equation to a certain extent.
As someone who does not operate systems in a business environment, I can't speak for the usefulness of Vista in those situations. However, for my personal use and the tasks I use computers for, I can't find a single compelling reason to move to Vista. Not a single positive, but many negatives; I'm still running some very useful hardware that is on USB1.1 and/or has to run on legacy mode on XP, and I have everything finally running perfectly as I want it - why in hell would I want to upgrade to an OS just to get all my old devices that are still perfectly good and useful to work all over again?
There is just no reason I can see to disrupt my life with a new OS that is going to be even more of a system hog than XP is. I know the conventional wisdom is to think, "Gee, guess it's time to upgrade to a new PC," but since I have no other reason to do so that would just be silly. I burn DVDs - my system does that flawlessly (especially since I just got a new LG external burner that is a Godsend on sale for $75). I use BitTorrent. I browse the web and check e-mail. I edit video and audio. None of this is going to get any easier via Vista, and in fact as outlined above much of it will get more difficult.
XP isn't going anywhere in my house. Hell, I still have a laptop running ME because it's the newest OS it can handle - but it still does the basic tasks I need just fine and it will continue to serve me for years to come (I've had it since 1997). Sure, the big PC gamers will have to upgrade eventually, but since I just play consoles these days (XBOX360 and Wii) that's not a reason for me.
MS is throwing the same party for Vista it threw for XP - better, more secure, blah, blah...we've been here, done that, and learned our lessons. All that said, as a consumer the fact that the first SP is already in the works makes me distrust the product even more, and further solidifies my choice that Vista is going to remain on the horizon for me instead of in my home for a lot longer than MS would like.
AE
Wind Walker said :
"It's amazing, isn't it? How you, as a "game developer" are more concerned about disk space than about gameplay? How many CDs did Pac Man fill? How many times did you have to swap cartridges playing through The Legend of Zelda? Were you frustrated when you scratched the disk of your Super Mario Brothers 3 cartridge?
Gameplay has stagnated in the past 10 years - since the Playstation era. There have been no new innovations in gameplay in that time, only improved graphics. The only games which come to mind with innovative gameplay are games like Guitar Hero with its specialty hardware. Of course, Wii is looking to change all that."
AMEN, brother!
I got bored with graphics a long time ago. "Weee, pretty!" is not what most people are looking for. The gaming industry has gotten so narrow because it keeps concentrating on the same crap.
The "developer" who posted above about how DVD is just not big enough is just full of crap...if you can't make an awesome game with 9GB (a dual-layer, not dual-sided, DVD) then you have more problems than you realize.
You know what I've been playing the last couple of years? Old NES/SNES/Genesis games. I own an XBOX and a GC, and every time I go to the store I try SO HARD to find a game I want to buy, but it's all the same derrarative crap. On top of it all, most games with these "super duper" graphics have SHITTY gameplay and SHITTY control.
The PS3 will sell to that small segment of the population that has a thousand bucks to blow on a console and a few games in one fell swoop, but that's not the majority.
There is a HUGE untapped market out there of disenfranchised gamers like myself who the industry has lost, and those they never had at all.
The reason the Wii is going to outsell them all isn't because of it's innovation in terms of control, but the same reason the NDS is kicking the PSP's ass : the games are fun as shit, have graphics good enough to satisfy the majority of us (especially when seen on the DS Lite's amazing screen), and it's a unique experience where almost all games (even the complex ones) can be played for as little as 30 seconds if that's all the time you have. You just shut the thing and it comes back right where you were. On the other hand, PSP just tried to port PS/PS2 games...nothing "new", and most people don't have hours to get into those types of games on the road anyway.
The only issue the Wii is going to have is marketing outside the gaming community; anyone but Sony-apologists have realized where the industry is heading, and stupid, unreasonably complex games with pretty graphics and cut scenes that take up 30GB on a Blu-Ray disc are going to be in the minority while everyone else who isn't duped by pretty pictures are playing the FUN games with graphics better than most normal people care about anyway.
Sony is an embarassment, because they are making the same mistake they always do; they want it ALL, and by pushing their proprietary format they are just confusing a consumer who doesn't give a shit in the first place. Average-joe is just happy with DVD in all formats...they won't be fooled into upgrading because Sony tells them they need it.
AE
Uh, have you ever played an MMO before?
Many people who get freakishly into it do "love" their characters in that way - it's very scary. The "ripped off" part is just a piece of it; it all boils down for their love of "living" in a world that does not exist and mommy/daddy/girlfriend (let's face it, we can leave the last one out as anyone who is "into" an MMO enough to pay someone to play it for them prolly doesn't have a GF) can't bother them while they strike with the Enchanted Red Hammer of Boorishness.
However, this whole topic is just astounding. I'm a casual MMO player (played 3 or 4 of them), and anyone that is so frigging retarded that they PAY someone to play a videogame for them is just beyond help. Paying someone to play a game for you? Wow...that's just, incredible to normal people.
If you don't like they game, not only are you not speaking with your wallet by leaving the MMO, but you are spending MORE for some smacktard to sit and play for you...just so you can play through the last few levels?
What a crazy world, when people are so goddamn lazy they can't even click a mouse for themselves.
AE
That's why God invented emulators with unlimited save points. :)
AE
It's all so ludicrous. I can't believe that these buffoons don't get laughed out of the boardroom when they try to invent ways they are "losing" money.
We keep these asshats in fancy cars and hookers, and they don't want me to be able to go to a website to see if I heard a lyric right or not?
I think I should start saying that I'm losing over a billion dollars a year because each U.S. adult isn't sending me a $5 bill on my birthday. That's the same thing to me as a record company whining about lost revenue - it's nothing they have in the first place, and nothing they can prove anyone would have bought anyway, so they never "lost" anything.
These fucks will never be satisified until we have to pay-per-listen, and an increasing scale based on the volume we play it at.
What's funny, is that there are no new artists out there that even make me want to "pirate"; no new music could EVER come out and I'd be happy with what I've already got. Same with movies - enough have been made in the last century that they could never produce another one after today and you'd still never run out of new films to watch in your lifetime.
I don't support the RIAA (the more they tighten their grip, the more I don't buy CDs, it's that simple), and I've gone from seeing 50-100 films a year in the theater to once a year, and Netflixing most everything else I watch and occasionally picking up one of those $5 DVDs at Wal-Mart. The more they act like spoiled children, the less business they get from me. As more people start waking up to the sickening, insane, beyond greedy, shameful way in which the record and film industries are run (and no, the artists aren't losing a dime - because said execs regularly fuck them out of everything) the less people will spend money on their crap. They can't keep up the "we're losing billions" fallacy forever.
Self-fufilling prophecy. The more they say invent they are losing, the more they actually will loose from pissed off people like me who just refuse to support what should amount to criminal activity when these guys screw everyone ten ways from Sunday (from the artists to the fans), then have the absolute nerve to call themselves the victims.
Cocksucker asshold dickheads...
AEfx
Guys like this that bash Wikipedia are laughably ignorant; they don't seem to know what an encylopedia actually is in the first place.
As any librarian will tell you, an encyclopedia is NOT a "be all, end all" resource. It's meant to give you a brief overview and a place to start further research. In fact, once most school kids hit junior high, most good teachers won't even allow you to use an encylopedia as a reference in a paper, and if they do allow it they limit it severely.
Wikipedia fills these needs, and the self-policing works great in my experience. If you are doing heavy academic research and are bitching about Wikipedia being unreliable, you are a shitty researcher; you should know that an encylopedia, especially at that level (post-High School and professional researchers), is not a reliable tool for absolute statements you are going to hinge your work on.
Wikipedia is great for most casual users. Watching "Gilmore Girls" and hearing a Elizabeth Taylor/Mike Todd reference and not knowing what it meant, all one has to do is head over to Wiki and get a nice little overview. If you are interested further, then you can check out google and actual books. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a political movement or something like that referenced somewhere that I simply didn't understand at first, and Wiki is superb for sating enough curiousity.
It baffles me that people could be "against" something like Wikipedia; send your ire to something actually damaging like that MySpace whorehouse stuff going on. Anyone that tries to use Wikipedia - OR ANY INTERNET SOURCE - as some sort of absolute and risks their job/reputation/etc. by using the information is an idiot and, again, does not know what an encylopedia really is.
Long live Wikipedia - and may the bad researchers who criticize them find jobs outside of the research realm, because they obviously suck at it if they bitch about the next generation of tool (Wiki versus paper encylopedias) when it seems they didn't even understand the most elementary things about what it is quickly replacing.
AE
Good points, and at this point I'd argue any PC bought in the past couple years that was decent to begin with can do most consumer-level video/photo/audio work. I have a 5-year old VIAO desktop (1GHz/1GB RAM) on it's own little stand just for video, and I crunch out DV footage on it all the time. Is it the fastest in the world? No, but since I'm not trying to surf the web or anything else on it while it's going it does it in an acceptable time. Most consumers only do this a few times a year at most anyway, to compile vacation and holiday type DVDs for friends.
And guess what I'm writing this on? A 1998 Gateway Solo notebook (233MHz, 64MB RAM). I have it in my living room on the coffee table for casual internet browsing (looking things up on the IMDB during viewing, for example) and for writing when the mood strikes me. It still works great, and the screen is still gorgeous (in some ways, nicer than some newer ones I see). It's slightly heftier than new notebooks, but it works great for what I use it for (as you can see). The only caveat? Since I can't run XP on it there is no driver made for my newer printer, so I have to email the stuff to myself and print it from my main machine (2 year old, 3GHz, 2GB RAM).
Older PC recycling that that is becoming more and more common, because average consumers may not be tech savvy but they are value-conscious. If it's still working for them, they don't see a reason to upgrade. Those people that drove the market the last few years have no compelling reason to do so.
AE
Consumers are holding off purchases...because they don't need new computers. The processor is the last thing most "Best Buy"-level consumers need to even think about replacing these days, and with upgradability so easy for the other major components the need has simply leveled out.
We've reached a threshold where some people aren't going to need any "better" computers for quite some time. For the average user, once you've got a nice flat screen, a nice big HD, and a reasonably fast computer, that's all they are ever going to need to email, burn CDs, and browse the web. The people that have driven the market the last few years (newer and/or first time buyers) are not falling to the "new box every 24 months" syndrome that felt like the norm before.
Add to that how easy things like storage and RAM are to upgrade these days (especially the former, aided by the convenience of USB), and most of the casual users (i.e. one or possibly two PC's in the home) I know are quite happy with what they've got. Unless you are an extreme gamer, there is little reason to upgrade. Same reason people don't upgrade Office every year (if they still use it...); to most people Office '97 does everything they'd ever want to do and then some. The only people upgrading are IT departments and corporations that just like to spend money. Very few industries need state-of-the-art tech, and even fewer individuals do.
The individuals are learning, because they aren't buying. At least that's what it seems like to me.
AE
"And yet I noticed no mention of this 'wonder product', nor even a link to your business in your profile."
:)
;)
LOL, and I see even less about you than that, since you are Anonymous Coward.
No "wonder product" for me, the portion you quoted was simply the distillation of what I've learned, not a singular description of how I'm doing it at the moment. By "a good product to sell", I mean not the modly clothes out of your basement (even if they *DO* still have the tags on them, LOL), no product in particular (at least for me).
As to what products I sell personally, I started with stuff I already had. I've been moving dozens of boxes around since college and finally cleaned them out - from MIB action figures to vintage books, anything I didn't really want any more I got rid of. Then once I started learning how eBay "worked" by exhausting that supply, I looked for products that weren't already deluged with sellers (i.e., don't start trying to sell cell phone accessories...), or that were especially good bargains at retail and resold them.
For instance, I'll go to Ciruit City and find some video game accessory inexplicably marked down to a ridiculous price (like $2.99 for a game shark-type device), and resell it for $20-50 on eBay (many sales like that are reigonal, or when an item is stopping being manufactured, so people in other locations that are already sold out or never had the sale push demand). I go to Circuit City, Best Buy, Staples, stores like that every week or two anyway, so I was already seeing these types of bargains (it's not something I go out intentionally to do).
Lately I've found reselling DVDs, especially to non-US buyers, to be extremely profitable. Multi-standard DVD players and TV's are much more common in other countries, and they have to pay local importer specialty shops tons to get NTSC, or Reigion 1, exclusive titles (especially certain genres of boxed set). They pay huge premiums for the service (sometimes double to triple what they can pay to have it shipped and pay the duties themselves). They'd rather buy off of eBay, especially since places like Amazon won't ship non-reigion local DVDs to them.
Now, if you go to sell a title there are already 36 copies of out there for buy-it-now's of $8.88, then no, you won't make any cash. So it's not fool-proof, you have to actually figure out what is rare, accquire the product here (new or used), and get it up there. And by maintaining a simple list out there via free web hosting, I was able to list the titles available and take direct orders once the eBay contact was made.
That's just one example. One I'm sharing because I've started selling something totally different in the past week or two and I'm winding down with the DVDs for now, I think. That new one I won't share - have to keep some secrets.
It's funny, because I would never define myself as someone who makes a "living" off of eBay, until I read this article and actually realized it's really what is happening. I left my last job expecting to at least take the summer off and wholly live off of my savings, but each week I found myself being able to get by just with eBay. I don't expect it to last forever, and I have no designs of becoming a "power seller", but at the moment it's working for me.
AE
Making millions? Hard. Making enough to live on? Not so hard if you have a mind for business and something to sell that isn't your moldy used clothes from the basement.
/. posters, eBay doesn't like this because they loose out on a later fee. However, there isn't a tinker's damn they can do about a piece of paper in the package I send out saying, "Thanks so much for being a customer, if you need anything else..."
.50 cents each from your basement is going to be more trouble than it's worth (though, somehow, you see people doing this all the time), but if you actually have a product to sell you can really make a go of it.
I do it just about every week (make a living off of eBay). I left a shitty office job with a decent chunk of savings in my bank account, deciding to live off of my savings until I needed to find another shitty office job to subsidize my writing and art ambitions.
It's a couple of months later, and with the exception of one week where I had to take a few bucks out of savings, eBay has paid for my gas, groceries, cable, etc. And the week after I had to dip in I was able to replace the money with an eBay surplus.
People complain about eBay and PayPal fees, but don't seem to get that eBay is providing the world's stage for you; it's the best damn advertising you can get. Yes, eBay has some ridiculous policies, but there are ways to work with them, and around them. For example, when I send out a package I include an enclosure with my name and website and an invitation for a future order. As previously stated by other
In fact, that's how the lion's share of my large orders come from. Someone buys one off of eBay, then comes back and spends a couple of hundred bucks with me, off eBay. I guess someone would say that that wasn't really making money off of eBay, but I disagree; I would never have found that customer otherwise.
As to PayPal, you just have to be careful with them. They are HEAVILY slanted toward the buyer, and their fees can be noticable. However, it is so convenient it is worth it for me. I have a PayPal debit card that I use for everything (and get 1% cash back instantly with each purchase, which helps ease the pain) and I never have to bother with money orders and checks and waiting and all that B.S. For orders under twenty bucks I don't worry about it, but I get delivery confirmation on anything above that to protect myself as much as possible.
Now, I completely realize that this could dry up tomorrow, that eBay sales and the follow-up sales won't last forever, but right now it sure is nice to be working no more than 90 minutes a day and making enough to live off of. I get great pleasure in making nice packages for people to recieve as well, and I have time to live my life instead of living in a cubicle. What it takes to make it on eBay is to understand how it works, and to know what will give you the best profits. Selling old clothes for
I guess the moral is don't quit your day job...unless you have the savings to back it up in case it doesn't work out and you have a decent mind for business and a good product to sell.
AE
You do have a point.
I bought an XBOX in early '02, only because the "Buffy The Vampire" slayer video game had gone from multi-platform to XBOX exclusive. Up until then, there hadn't been a single game that interested me. I've never had any PS, and my last console before that was a N64 that I had sold to someone a few years back. I only gamed on the PC at that point (from a youth growing up playing Nintendo and Sega).
Over the past four years, I've bought less than five XBOX games; frankly, most of them just didn't interest me. The two Simpsons games were fun, and so was Goldeneye. But even as an adult with a decent amount of disposable income, I just could rarely feel good about plunking down $50 for a game unless I was assured I'd like it.
Cut to now, and I had no idea how good the used XBOX market is. I went to a Gamestop, and games less than two years old I could get for as little as like $7. I bought "Alias", a game from 2004, and absolutely love it; I only paid $8. It's just as fun now as if I had run out and bought it two years ago.
I guess I just grew out of that "I need to have the newest now or my brain will explode" mentality. I didn't see the LOTR trilogy until last summer because I hate watching a film and then a directors cut, so I waited until it was all out on DVD in the extended versions to watch them all at once. The same holds true for games, as I can sit down and play "Super Mario Brothers 3" and still have a really fun experience.
Nintendo has the right idea, offering it's library on the Virtual Console. The PS3 is going to be a high-end toy for those who need to say they own the "newest of the new", but there are thousands of games out there, from the Virtual Console line-up (NES, SNES, N64, Gen, TG16) to the libraries of XBOX, PSOne, PSTwo, and Gamecube games already out there, just waiting to be played. And although it's great to appriciate exceptional, revolutionary graphics, for most gamers once you get past the hype it's really not the be-all-end all; it's how much fun the game is. I think Sony (and to a lesser extent MS) is forgetting that.
AE
I opened up an AOL account last fall because I was going on vacation and I needed dial-up service. When I called a month later, I literally had to yell and scream at them to get them to cancel my account.
"But sir, have you tried our (insert name of useless feature)? Perhaps that would entice you to stay."
"No, thank you, just cancel."
"But sir, what about all our exclusive AOL music content?"
"No, thank you, please just cancel my account immediately.
(almost ten minutes later)
"But sir, didn't you enjoy our email service?"
"Listen, cancel this fucking account right now. Do you understand English? I want this account cancelled, and I want it done now!"
That finally did the trick. But I'm not going to spend my time on the phone with a bunch of asswipes (who speak perfect English, BTW, at least the one I had) who pretend they don't hear me say CANCEL. It was a huge mistake to deal with AOL on my part, I should have known better, but these worthless shits still have no right to act this way. I work on the phone a great deal, and it takes a lot to get me pissy and swearing - unfortunately, that's the ONLY THING that works with these jerks.
Best idea, stay away from AOL entirely...Next time I "Need" dial-up for something I'll just go without.
AE
The only reason companies are afraid of downloads is because they know it's going to cut into their sixty-dollar off-the-shelf-games.
Just like articles where some publishers/companies discount so-called "retro-gaming" as being insignifigant in their eyes.
Well, I spent about an hour yesterday playing "Super Mario Brothers 3", and it was just as fun now as it was fifteen years ago. All of the suits making comments like this are so out of touch it's almost comical. They keep going after that shrinking "gotta have the newest, bestest, prettiest game NOW!" market and fail to realize there are tens of millions of us who gave up on gaming years ago because we were sick of all the "shitty but pretty" games where pretty pictures rank far above gameplay.
If only these guys would realize that spending enough to make a feature film on a game just isn't necessary, that paying 50 artists for every 1 actual game mechanics programmer is silly.
They need to look outside the box. Problem is, they created the box, and seem so lost in it that I don't know if anything is going to demonstrate otherwise for them until the box just busts apart and disintergrates.
AE
I've played Brain Age and it's fine - the microphone hardware doesn't care what language you speak in, LOL. ;-) It's the reigon of the game you play that is.
As to voiding your warranty, you are absolutely correct and that was something I meant to mention in my original reply. That was the other deciding factor for me, and could end up being very important.
AE
The only difference is color. U.S. has "polar white" only right now, whereas Japan has white, light blue, and dark navy blue, and the upcoming Euro release will be Jet Black.
At first I thought that was a reason to import one (they run about $200ish on eBay), but I'm glad I decided against it and just went for the US model. While asthetically I might have prefered black or the dark navy, the new slick finish is great but it takes fingerprints like nobody's business. Since I keep a sunglasses shami around to clean the screens anyway it's not a huge problem, but on the white you can't see them unless you hold it up to a light and really look for them. I have a friend who imported one of the dark navy ones and the fingerprints show up much more. It'd be a nightmare if you are OCD like me and would be cleaning it every time you sat it down.
That said, it's the best purchase I've made in a long time. I am so totally floored by the quality of the screens...games that I finished long ago (Super Princess Peach, Mario and Luigi : Partners In Time) look like brand new games. The colors are incredibly vibrant (the yellows and greens that were there the whole time but I never saw astounded me), and the backgrounds pop out and the detail is so much more apparent. I never really wanted to admit that I noticed it before, but the regular DS has very muddy looking screens. I'm only running on brightness level 3 (out of 4) and it's literally like night and day when comparing side-by-side with the normal DS.
Thankfully, I've found a use for my old one - it's going to keep Brain Age in my living room where I can access it easily when watching TV and such; now when people visit I'll be able to play the great two-player games (that, thankfully, only require one cart unlike the old days where everyone needed their own copy) with them instead of telling them how if they bought one we could play together.
AE