So software developers shouldn't be liable for problems caused by failure of their software, because they're just giving it to people, they aren't telling people that they can actually use it? Damn, your analogy was terrible.
I find the comment that they make the best systems laughable. The GameCube offered nothing that the Xbox didn't, and it lacked a hard drive and quality online play. Even if you want to say that it has fewer loading times than the Xbox, I'd rather have a console that could play DVDs, rip music, and play online than one that couldn't do any of those but loaded faster. Even the PS2 had online play and DVD playback and it beat the GameCube to market by a mile. But yes, the GameCube was profitable. I'm sure the fact that they don't sell their consoles for a loss completely makes up for the fact that they're capturing a smaller and smaller market share with each generation. I mean if you only sell 20 systems, but you make $50 on each one, you still make a profit, right?
I take it you haven't actually used Linux before? The only reason most open source applications run on all distributions is that if they don't work, people can make any necessary changes or recompile it with whatever options are needed to make it work for their distro.
This post is a huge steaming pile. The law says that breaking the law is immoral, therefore, breaking the law is inherently immoral is basically what you say in the first two paragraphs, right? Well, I guess you also say that since it is based on the will of the people. Well, so what? If 51% of the population wants me to jump off the bridge, is it immoral for me to not jump off a bridge? No, because other people wanting you to do something does not create a moral imperative, no matter how many of them there are.
Following the law is a practical concern, not a moral one. If you're willing to accept the consequences and you don't think breaking the law is immoral, go for it.
Holy shit. You're kidding right? The only benefit they get out of this is that their customers can modify the code once they get it, if they want. Nobody can help develop the application, but once they distribute it, their customer can modify it and sell it as part of their own system or just distribute it for free to whomever they want. And how far would they be behind in releases, really? Every time a new version comes out they just have to buy one or convince someone who bought one to send them a copy and then they can make their own. Plus your proposed better compromise severely limits the ways they can use their software. They certainly couldn't distribute it for free as they're doing now, so I dont' see this as being a benefit to users either. But hey, everyone would be free to distribute it to anyone they want except for the actual developer.
The latter is why MS wont release office for Linux, because currently full compatability with office is one of the last few things stopping companies switching all their pcs over.
I'm pretty sure it would take a lot more than Office for Linux to get most companies to even consider switching all their computers over to Linux. But, even disregarding the effect on Windows sales, there are plenty of other good reasons for Microsoft to not give a crap about porting Office to Linux. Microsoft would have to port a huge application to a completely different OS, so that they could sell to only a tiny fraction of desktop users, many of whom would use Open Office anyway? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense in terms of sales. People always act like companies should port applications to Linux, but if the user base isn't there, why should they? Plus, Microsoft would have to support how many different versions of how many different distributions in order to even have their product available to the whole Linux market?
I think this is a lot more about Microsoft seeing a whole lot of work for little reward than being afraid of Linux.
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Haha, I love how people will debate to no end whether it's theft or not. As if it's morally okay, as long as nobody is allowed to call it theft.
Ah, see, if I'm hanging out with my friends I would rather play poker, euchre, a board game, pool, or do any number of other things. For me video games mainly occupy alone time. So party games really don't appeal to me. I've tried super smash brothers with a group of friends, along with halo, and super monkey ball, and a variety of other party games. They just don't do it for me.
Re:Microsoft fanboys?
on
State of the 360
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Uh, no.
Uh, yes. Your reply is amazingly well thought out, but somehow I'll try to overcome your powerful logic. Even if you think the Gamecube can put out graphics as good as the Xbox (the PS2 definitely can't), then the Xbox still has hardware advantages due to the HDD and the fact that it is a progressive scan DVD player and has online play. You don't need to buy a memory card, you can rip music to the hard drive, etc. I've heard people argue that the GC has better anti-aliasing, but frankly, I haven't seen it, and every time I see multi-platform game reviewed, the Xbox version comes out as good as, if not better than the Gamecube version.
I own a PS2 because I think it has the best games and a Gamecube because.. Jesus, what was I thinking buying that? I don't own an Xbox, but if you pay attention to video games at all (without ignoring the news you don't like), you should acknowledge that the Xbox is generally regarded as having the best hardware. It's not like admitting your video game hardware isn't the most powerful is going to cause you to lose your job and cause your friends to stop talking to you. It's okay. Really, it is.
Re:I was a fanboy...
on
State of the 360
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have to whole heartedly disagree with the parent post. I owned a PS2 and a Gamecube, and I feel like the Gamecube was a big waste of money. Other than Metroid Prime, Windwaker, and Pikmin, there were no games I gave a crap about. And none of those three got as much play time out of me as any of my favorite games on PS2. I got some other ones as gifts or bought them because they looked good (i.e. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes), but didn't end up playing them very much. Honestly, I'm so sick of everything under the sun being branded with Mario and company, that I don't think I could stand to pay money for most of Nintendo's first party titles. If you're into Nintendo's first party titles, then maybe you'll have better luck with the Gamecube than I did.
I have a ton of PS2 games that I really liked and played the hell out of though. FFX, GTA, GT3-4, MGS2-3 just to name the first ones that come to mind. My PS2 has probably seen at least twenty hours of use for every hour I've used my Gamecube. On a side note, the fact that the Gamecube was such a wash for me is the biggest reason why I don't give a crap about the Revolution, and will continue to not give a crap until there are some amazing games.
Is carbon the only radioactive chemical they can use to date biological material? I know they use an element with a much longer half-life to date rocks. My guess would be they used radioactive dating, just not carbon dating.
One thing that I'm looking forward to doing with Xbox Live that you can do with Silver is chat with friends via text or voice, even if you're both playing offline, single player games. It's not a big enough feature to sell a lot of systems, but I think I'm definitely looking forward to it.
Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, clicking that button that says "Show me the files in this folder." sure is hard.
Ok, it sounds like you're being sarcastic and trying to knock Windows for taking control from users.. but in Linux you have to switch to root to modify anything in \, so Linux takes a lot more control from the average user. Or were you trying to make fun of the fact that they don't take enough control from the average user? Because if so, you did a very poor job of it.
And I'm still waiting for a good reason for the u.s. to control the internet.
Because they paid for it. If that's not a good reason then I want your car, your home and your computer, because you don't have any good reason why you should control them.
PDF is open? Heh. Anyway... I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft takes a hard line on OpenDocument and Massachusets dumps the format within a few years. If other states start follow Massachusets' lead then maybe Microsoft will change their tune, but I doubt it will happen in less liberal states any time soon.
I started out thinking Blu Ray would be the way to go but after reading some of the articles on Ars about it recently, I'm thinking HD DVD would be better. If the movie industry started making all new DVD releases as hybrid discs, there could be a very easy transition, and it could happen soon, from the sounds of things. Of course, things might not be as easy as they sound. Honestly, I don't care about the extra space. I use an external HD for backups, not my DVD burner. And I don't care how many discs my movies/tv shows come on. So I have to change it once an hour, I need to get up once in a while anyway.
There's still plenty of time for the effort to get mired in the bureaucracy or killed by some pinhead politician who thinks he's doing his constituents (and by that I mean the big companies that own him) a favor by "maintaining Massachusetts' position as a leader in industry cooperation and integration", i.e. using Microsoft products "because that's what everyone else uses".
God forbid someone would want their documents to be usable by other groups they work with or that someone would want citizens to be able to download government documents and read them in a program they already have. Sure, OpenOffice is free, as long as you have heard of it, and have broadband, or a couple of days to spend downloading. Haha, nobody likes dial-up users anyway. Screw them.
Oh man, the fact that moving to an open format will prevent 98% of the population from being able to read government documents without downloading or buying a new program they've never heard of and don't want is great. I'm surprised people in the government didn't think of this sooner as a way around the freedom of information act. Just give everyone copies of documents in formats they can't use.
Yes, let's ban everything that might be harmful. There might be a link between computer games and violence, they're gone. P2P networks might be used for piracy, they're gone. A police force could be used to enforce unjust laws, so law enforcement is out. Judges can make bad decisions, so let's get rid of that branch of the government. Same goes for the other two actually, so they're gone. Voters can make bad decisions which curtail the rights of the minority, so no more voting. Any hardware that allows for encryption could be used to transmit information which is used for corrupt purposes, so no more encryption.
What control measures are you talking about? The ones that RMS says will be put in to limit which software can run? Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. Apple is putting a TCM chip (correct abbreviation? I get them mixed up) into their new Intel Macs, but they're not going to be saying you can only run Apple software on it. Just because the hardware is there to theoretically disallow running arbitrary software, doesn't mean an operating system will be written that uses it to do so. And if one is written, you won't have to buy it, unless it's legislated that it's mandatory, but like I said, I agree that such legislation would be terrible.
And so what if cell phone manufacturers made phones with these chips? Would you be so up in arms if they just refused to make cell phones which have the functionality that these chips take away? If cell phone manufacturers refused to make phones that could use custom ringtones it wouldn't be infringing on your rights. This isn't either. If they don't want their hardware to be used a certain way, buy something else. If nobody wants to sell a phone that allows you to put your own software on it and you don't want to use the provided software, just don't buy a powerful phone. Nobody is selling rocket cars as far as I know either, but that doesn't mean people are infringing on your god given right to own a god damn rocket car.
And oh my god, would people please stop calling the right to put a copy of your favorite song onto your iPod a "basic freedom." It's not. It's not even close. Fair use is not a fundamental right. The right to not be stabbed to death is a fundamental right. There's a difference.
Wow, way to post a link that has absolutely nothing to do with the article or the parent post. Congratulations, you added absolutely nothing to the conversation. That's the hallmark of a true slashdotter.
Haha, I love posts from people who think MS is being destroyed by open source. OSS hasn't made much of a dent yet. It might at some point, but Linux taking a big chunk of Windows market share is definitely a ways off and not a certainty. And omg, they don't dominate the market for online music. The market for that is still tiny compared to anything that Microsoft really cares about, and plus now Microsoft has a patent that they can use to get a cut out of every iPod sold.
I see a lot of the same problems with that article that I saw with the post I was originally responding to. Apart from the fact that I do not consider RMS to be anything close to a reliable source of information, all it consists of is a bunch of hypothetical examples of ways technology could be used, without giving any evidence to believe they will be used that way or any explanation of how the benefits don't out weigh the consequences. He also doesn't give any reason to think that free operating systems won't be able to be used, except because he says that's how it will be. He also makes no attempt to address why IBM would be one of the promoters of the TCG if trusted computing will kill off free software.
Could confidential emails be used for corrupt purposes? Sure. But peer to peer networks can be used for piracy. Does that mean they should be illegal? Could programs use a trusted computing platform to write encrypted documents that can only be read on trusted computers? Sure, but whose to say that you won't have an option to save in unencrypted format, or that you can't just use an office suite which lets you choose to save in whatever format you want?
I am definitely against legislation that mandates trusted computing, but I'm not opposed to trusted computing in general. Depending on how it's implemented I might prefer it. I would like the ability to control who has access to content I create and so on. I don't see how it can occur to so few people on slashdot that corporations aren't the only people capable of spewing misleading information to promote their goals. Guess what, anyone can do it, including posters to slashdot, RMS, slashdot editors, OS friendly news sources. Just because slashdot or RMS says it's bad doesn't mean you should believe them without giving it any thought.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean not to nitpick? That's all you were doing.
So software developers shouldn't be liable for problems caused by failure of their software, because they're just giving it to people, they aren't telling people that they can actually use it? Damn, your analogy was terrible.
I find the comment that they make the best systems laughable. The GameCube offered nothing that the Xbox didn't, and it lacked a hard drive and quality online play. Even if you want to say that it has fewer loading times than the Xbox, I'd rather have a console that could play DVDs, rip music, and play online than one that couldn't do any of those but loaded faster. Even the PS2 had online play and DVD playback and it beat the GameCube to market by a mile. But yes, the GameCube was profitable. I'm sure the fact that they don't sell their consoles for a loss completely makes up for the fact that they're capturing a smaller and smaller market share with each generation. I mean if you only sell 20 systems, but you make $50 on each one, you still make a profit, right?
This whole argument is moot. It's already been announced that FFXI will require a HDD.
I take it you haven't actually used Linux before? The only reason most open source applications run on all distributions is that if they don't work, people can make any necessary changes or recompile it with whatever options are needed to make it work for their distro.
Following the law is a practical concern, not a moral one. If you're willing to accept the consequences and you don't think breaking the law is immoral, go for it.
Holy shit. You're kidding right? The only benefit they get out of this is that their customers can modify the code once they get it, if they want. Nobody can help develop the application, but once they distribute it, their customer can modify it and sell it as part of their own system or just distribute it for free to whomever they want. And how far would they be behind in releases, really? Every time a new version comes out they just have to buy one or convince someone who bought one to send them a copy and then they can make their own. Plus your proposed better compromise severely limits the ways they can use their software. They certainly couldn't distribute it for free as they're doing now, so I dont' see this as being a benefit to users either. But hey, everyone would be free to distribute it to anyone they want except for the actual developer.
I'm pretty sure it would take a lot more than Office for Linux to get most companies to even consider switching all their computers over to Linux. But, even disregarding the effect on Windows sales, there are plenty of other good reasons for Microsoft to not give a crap about porting Office to Linux. Microsoft would have to port a huge application to a completely different OS, so that they could sell to only a tiny fraction of desktop users, many of whom would use Open Office anyway? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense in terms of sales. People always act like companies should port applications to Linux, but if the user base isn't there, why should they? Plus, Microsoft would have to support how many different versions of how many different distributions in order to even have their product available to the whole Linux market?
I think this is a lot more about Microsoft seeing a whole lot of work for little reward than being afraid of Linux.
Haha, I love how people will debate to no end whether it's theft or not. As if it's morally okay, as long as nobody is allowed to call it theft.
As long as Detroit doesn't make it, I think we're safe. But if a miracle happens and Detroit plays in the super-bowl in Detroit, we're goners.
Ah, see, if I'm hanging out with my friends I would rather play poker, euchre, a board game, pool, or do any number of other things. For me video games mainly occupy alone time. So party games really don't appeal to me. I've tried super smash brothers with a group of friends, along with halo, and super monkey ball, and a variety of other party games. They just don't do it for me.
Uh, yes. Your reply is amazingly well thought out, but somehow I'll try to overcome your powerful logic. Even if you think the Gamecube can put out graphics as good as the Xbox (the PS2 definitely can't), then the Xbox still has hardware advantages due to the HDD and the fact that it is a progressive scan DVD player and has online play. You don't need to buy a memory card, you can rip music to the hard drive, etc. I've heard people argue that the GC has better anti-aliasing, but frankly, I haven't seen it, and every time I see multi-platform game reviewed, the Xbox version comes out as good as, if not better than the Gamecube version.
I own a PS2 because I think it has the best games and a Gamecube because.. Jesus, what was I thinking buying that? I don't own an Xbox, but if you pay attention to video games at all (without ignoring the news you don't like), you should acknowledge that the Xbox is generally regarded as having the best hardware. It's not like admitting your video game hardware isn't the most powerful is going to cause you to lose your job and cause your friends to stop talking to you. It's okay. Really, it is.
I have a ton of PS2 games that I really liked and played the hell out of though. FFX, GTA, GT3-4, MGS2-3 just to name the first ones that come to mind. My PS2 has probably seen at least twenty hours of use for every hour I've used my Gamecube. On a side note, the fact that the Gamecube was such a wash for me is the biggest reason why I don't give a crap about the Revolution, and will continue to not give a crap until there are some amazing games.
Is carbon the only radioactive chemical they can use to date biological material? I know they use an element with a much longer half-life to date rocks. My guess would be they used radioactive dating, just not carbon dating.
One thing that I'm looking forward to doing with Xbox Live that you can do with Silver is chat with friends via text or voice, even if you're both playing offline, single player games. It's not a big enough feature to sell a lot of systems, but I think I'm definitely looking forward to it.
Ok, it sounds like you're being sarcastic and trying to knock Windows for taking control from users.. but in Linux you have to switch to root to modify anything in \, so Linux takes a lot more control from the average user. Or were you trying to make fun of the fact that they don't take enough control from the average user? Because if so, you did a very poor job of it.
Because they paid for it. If that's not a good reason then I want your car, your home and your computer, because you don't have any good reason why you should control them.
PDF is open? Heh. Anyway... I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft takes a hard line on OpenDocument and Massachusets dumps the format within a few years. If other states start follow Massachusets' lead then maybe Microsoft will change their tune, but I doubt it will happen in less liberal states any time soon.
I started out thinking Blu Ray would be the way to go but after reading some of the articles on Ars about it recently, I'm thinking HD DVD would be better. If the movie industry started making all new DVD releases as hybrid discs, there could be a very easy transition, and it could happen soon, from the sounds of things. Of course, things might not be as easy as they sound. Honestly, I don't care about the extra space. I use an external HD for backups, not my DVD burner. And I don't care how many discs my movies/tv shows come on. So I have to change it once an hour, I need to get up once in a while anyway.
God forbid someone would want their documents to be usable by other groups they work with or that someone would want citizens to be able to download government documents and read them in a program they already have. Sure, OpenOffice is free, as long as you have heard of it, and have broadband, or a couple of days to spend downloading. Haha, nobody likes dial-up users anyway. Screw them.
Oh man, the fact that moving to an open format will prevent 98% of the population from being able to read government documents without downloading or buying a new program they've never heard of and don't want is great. I'm surprised people in the government didn't think of this sooner as a way around the freedom of information act. Just give everyone copies of documents in formats they can't use.
No, those savvy /.ers fall for entirely different crap.
What control measures are you talking about? The ones that RMS says will be put in to limit which software can run? Just because he says it, doesn't make it true. Apple is putting a TCM chip (correct abbreviation? I get them mixed up) into their new Intel Macs, but they're not going to be saying you can only run Apple software on it. Just because the hardware is there to theoretically disallow running arbitrary software, doesn't mean an operating system will be written that uses it to do so. And if one is written, you won't have to buy it, unless it's legislated that it's mandatory, but like I said, I agree that such legislation would be terrible.
And so what if cell phone manufacturers made phones with these chips? Would you be so up in arms if they just refused to make cell phones which have the functionality that these chips take away? If cell phone manufacturers refused to make phones that could use custom ringtones it wouldn't be infringing on your rights. This isn't either. If they don't want their hardware to be used a certain way, buy something else. If nobody wants to sell a phone that allows you to put your own software on it and you don't want to use the provided software, just don't buy a powerful phone. Nobody is selling rocket cars as far as I know either, but that doesn't mean people are infringing on your god given right to own a god damn rocket car.
And oh my god, would people please stop calling the right to put a copy of your favorite song onto your iPod a "basic freedom." It's not. It's not even close. Fair use is not a fundamental right. The right to not be stabbed to death is a fundamental right. There's a difference.
Wow, way to post a link that has absolutely nothing to do with the article or the parent post. Congratulations, you added absolutely nothing to the conversation. That's the hallmark of a true slashdotter.
Haha, I love posts from people who think MS is being destroyed by open source. OSS hasn't made much of a dent yet. It might at some point, but Linux taking a big chunk of Windows market share is definitely a ways off and not a certainty. And omg, they don't dominate the market for online music. The market for that is still tiny compared to anything that Microsoft really cares about, and plus now Microsoft has a patent that they can use to get a cut out of every iPod sold.
Could confidential emails be used for corrupt purposes? Sure. But peer to peer networks can be used for piracy. Does that mean they should be illegal? Could programs use a trusted computing platform to write encrypted documents that can only be read on trusted computers? Sure, but whose to say that you won't have an option to save in unencrypted format, or that you can't just use an office suite which lets you choose to save in whatever format you want?
I am definitely against legislation that mandates trusted computing, but I'm not opposed to trusted computing in general. Depending on how it's implemented I might prefer it. I would like the ability to control who has access to content I create and so on. I don't see how it can occur to so few people on slashdot that corporations aren't the only people capable of spewing misleading information to promote their goals. Guess what, anyone can do it, including posters to slashdot, RMS, slashdot editors, OS friendly news sources. Just because slashdot or RMS says it's bad doesn't mean you should believe them without giving it any thought.