Eventually the Chinese equivalent of Upton Sinclair will write the Chinese equivalent of The Jungle and everything will magically get better.
Or maybe one day the Chinese people will come together in solidarity to form a national union to ensure better working conditions. No. That'll never work. It's too communistic.
The Federal Trade Commission has launched an investigation of price fixing among manufacturers of solid-state drives. A spokesman for the FTC says that the top hard drive manufactures "have colluded to keep the prices of SSD drives artificially high." A representative from Western Digital has stated that his company takes the charges seriously and that it will fully cooperate with the investigation.
Actually "third world" referred to any country not aligned with either capitalist countries such as the US (first world) or communist countries such as the Soviet Union (second world). Thus, the third world was Africa, South America, the Middle East, and India.
However, nowadays, "third world" can be used to refer to areas stricken with severe poverty. For example, I can say, "The rust belt of the United States is essentially a third world country" and everyone but you would know exactly what I was talking about.
I realize it's difficult to understand human behavior when you lack any sense of humor. You must lead a sad and pathetic life. But you're probably not even aware of that, are you?
"[EA will] take the feedback from the community (press and players) to tweak the follow-on full game that will be released at a normal packaged price point."
It sounds to me like EA will start charging for beta releases.
You can get Zombieland on blu-ray at Amazon for $23.49. It's yours, you can loan it, sell it, make backups (shhhh), etc. Plus it's in full 1080p. Who the frick would buy a "virtual" copy for nearly the same price?
Agreed. And we all know that Dvorak is infinitely more famous for writing complete BS for the sole purpose of getting people riled up to increase his page views.
"Actually, I think the logic for a projector is... an easy way to display the photos you have taken on your phone to people"
Why the frick would I want to subject my friends, family and coworkers to a slide-show of my vacation pics?! If that's what you do it explains your nagging doubts as to why you don't have any friends.
Why anyone would want a projector built into his or her phone (other than a nimrod who subjects friends, family and coworkers to slide-shows of his vacation pics) would be to watch movies and shows on a big screen nearly anywhere indoors. That'd be awesome!
"A lot of us never use the camera in our phones now -- would you use a pico-projector if it was built into your phone?"
How does the fact that you don't use the camera in your phone have anything to do with the fact that you would not use a pico-projector? They are two completely different technologies with completely different purposes filling completely different needs.
I have no problem with what Sony is doing here. They are selling a physical game, which can be resold without impediment. And an online service, which each subsequent purchaser of the game needs to buy if he wants to partake in it.
My post came from my blog and was merely about the general idea about used and new game sales.
So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.
Let me explain. Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?
Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it. But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve? Nope.
That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets. The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market. Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement. In the United States we have the right of first sale. What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material. So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.
Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling. If you think that, you're completely missing the point.
The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales. It does not have such a right to profits. None whatsoever. No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold. GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale? What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now? (I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?)
My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market. None whatsoever.
Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games." It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game. They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy. So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.
I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales. I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.
Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm. It's competition.
The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.
Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.
But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market. It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games. It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.
If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work. You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them. Get over it.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games. Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point.
They could have put him in a pedobear costume.
Eventually the Chinese equivalent of Upton Sinclair will write the Chinese equivalent of The Jungle and everything will magically get better.
Or maybe one day the Chinese people will come together in solidarity to form a national union to ensure better working conditions. No. That'll never work. It's too communistic.
Apple either already knows who it is or would have known shortly anyway. It's not like Apple isn't keeping track of who has its prototypes.
April 19, 2011 - PC World Magazine
The Federal Trade Commission has launched an investigation of price fixing among manufacturers of solid-state drives. A spokesman for the FTC says that the top hard drive manufactures "have colluded to keep the prices of SSD drives artificially high." A representative from Western Digital has stated that his company takes the charges seriously and that it will fully cooperate with the investigation.
Troll?! Since when does feeling empathy and expressing sympathy make one a troll?
Actually "third world" referred to any country not aligned with either capitalist countries such as the US (first world) or communist countries such as the Soviet Union (second world). Thus, the third world was Africa, South America, the Middle East, and India.
However, nowadays, "third world" can be used to refer to areas stricken with severe poverty. For example, I can say, "The rust belt of the United States is essentially a third world country" and everyone but you would know exactly what I was talking about.
I realize it's difficult to understand human behavior when you lack any sense of humor. You must lead a sad and pathetic life. But you're probably not even aware of that, are you?
...who read Oprah instead of Oracle?!
Russia is basically a third world country with nukes.
They didn't pay enough.
"[EA will] take the feedback from the community (press and players) to tweak the follow-on full game that will be released at a normal packaged price point."
It sounds to me like EA will start charging for beta releases.
Morgan Freeman.
You can get Zombieland on blu-ray at Amazon for $23.49. It's yours, you can loan it, sell it, make backups (shhhh), etc. Plus it's in full 1080p. Who the frick would buy a "virtual" copy for nearly the same price?
Will Google's executives be arrested for this video too?
If there is a god, kill everything and let god sort it out.
If there is no god, then kill everything just for the fun of it.
Agreed. And we all know that Dvorak is infinitely more famous for writing complete BS for the sole purpose of getting people riled up to increase his page views.
Shhuudder!
"Actually, I think the logic for a projector is... an easy way to display the photos you have taken on your phone to people"
Why the frick would I want to subject my friends, family and coworkers to a slide-show of my vacation pics?! If that's what you do it explains your nagging doubts as to why you don't have any friends.
Why anyone would want a projector built into his or her phone (other than a nimrod who subjects friends, family and coworkers to slide-shows of his vacation pics) would be to watch movies and shows on a big screen nearly anywhere indoors. That'd be awesome!
"A lot of us never use the camera in our phones now -- would you use a pico-projector if it was built into your phone?"
How does the fact that you don't use the camera in your phone have anything to do with the fact that you would not use a pico-projector? They are two completely different technologies with completely different purposes filling completely different needs.
But I did not link back to my old blog post! That makes it ok, right?
I have no problem with what Sony is doing here. They are selling a physical game, which can be resold without impediment. And an online service, which each subsequent purchaser of the game needs to buy if he wants to partake in it.
My post came from my blog and was merely about the general idea about used and new game sales.
So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.
Let me explain. Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?
Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it. But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve? Nope.
That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets. The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market. Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement. In the United States we have the right of first sale. What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material. So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.
Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling. If you think that, you're completely missing the point.
The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales. It does not have such a right to profits. None whatsoever. No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold. GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale? What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now? (I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?)
My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market. None whatsoever.
Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games." It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game. They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy. So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.
I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales. I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.
Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm. It's competition.
The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.
Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.
But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market. It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games. It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.
If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work. You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them. Get over it.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games. Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.
All I needed was a flat-head screw driver.
You can use trademarks as adjectives. The rest of the world uses them as nouns and verbs. Get over it.