If you're only playing against the environment, then why in the fuck is it a multiplayer game? Clearly since OTHERS are playing, you're playing against some of them. Since that's the case, what's the point of quickly making your way through a game by merely paying money? Shouldn't the PLAYING be the fun part?! Because if the playing isn't fun, then why play at all?
I agree. Can you imagine playing chess with someone who could buy the best next move? Or playing UT with someone who could buy all the health he needed?
This move destroys all game play. And as you say, it will also destroy the game.
The same thing that happens to the investors of a "hot" dot.com company that eventually goes bankrupt. Sony isn't the first company to devise a system that makes investments suddenly worthless. Such systems have been around since money was first invented.
I was worried that successful legitimate services like iTunes would hinder the flow of free P2P music. Let's praise the Canadian government for helping to stamp out legitimate online music!
I'll say it for a THIRD time. Texas is under no obligation to provide internet access. However, once a state does provide it, it cannot censor it. That's the law. It's just that simple.
"On a last note, I find it funny how porn always seems to fall under free speech while God or Christ falls under separation of church and state."
I don't see anything funny about this. The first amendment to the US constitution says that the government cannot establish a religion. You may be a Christian, but what you fail to realize is that everyone else is not. Thus, the founding fathers wanted the state to take a neutral position on religion. I wouldn't want to live in your ideal Christian state anymore than you'd want to live in a Muslim state.
The first amendment also says that the government cannot abridge freedom of speech. That means what it says, that the government cannot censor what we watch, hear, etc.
If you love the Constitution so much, I strongly suggest you actually take the time to read it!
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Once the government provides access, it cannot censor portions of that access other than to protect children.
"They are not blocking free speech."
What planet do you live on? On earth when a government BLOCKS access to content it is BLOCKING free speech. That's what filters do.
"Why not thank Texas for providing access?"
I think the access Texas provides is great. I thank them for providing access. But I think it's wrong for the state to decide what I cannot see. Heck, it's not only wrong, it's illegal.
If you don't like our nation's constitution, I strongly suggest you move out, because you're ruining it for the rest of us.
Forwards or backwards, you're looking at it wrong.
First, if the public doesn't approve of pornography, then how are they ever going to be exposed to it? By accidentally typing www.youngsluts.com in their browser?! By accidentally searching for "young sluts" in google?!
Second, I agree that anti-pornography laws are passed all the time by righteous legislatures more concerned with getting the elderly vote than protecting our right. But you should also be aware that these laws are struck down time and time again. In the real world, the only porn that is illegal involve children or snuff films.
And here's the law on a government's ability to censor. If Texas did NOT provide any WiFi access, it would not be censoring anything. It has no duty to provide internet access. However, once it starts providing such access, it cannot censor other than to protect children.
That's why you see filtering software in libraries, to protect children. But adults can bypass those filters for their own research.
Oh come on, Trent is about a sugary as they come. He's basically an angry Inxs. You want real inaccessible music? Try John Zorn, Brujeria, or Throbbing Gristle. Trent is nothing but a pansy poser. He's to the 90s as Sammy Hagar was to the 80s.
Heck, what if you use a text based browser like Lynks?!
What if you're deaf with the radio on?
What if you're blind with the TV on but the sound off?
The "solution" is that there is NO fucking contract. Advertisers take the risk that no one will pay attention. If they're not willing to take that risk, then they are free to stop advertising.
You're safe to go to the bathroom during commercials. You can have a conversation with your friends at the bar, even though the blaring TV is showing a commercial. When a commercial comes on the radio, you're free to change stations.
And anyone who thinks otherwise should be shot. I'm serious.
I've been using Netflix for about a year and a half now. I get anywhere from 10 to 16 movies a week with its 8 movies at a time deal.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I get a three-day turn around on movies. E.g., if I mail them back on Monday, it'll get them Tuesday and mail back the same day, which means I'll get the new ones on Wednesday.
Contrast that to the god-awful experience I had with Blockbuster. It would take about 9 days to get a movie and the same going back. In fact, TWO MONTHS after quitting, they finally got a movie I sent back two months earlier. TWO FIGGIN' MONTHS TO GET A MOVIE?!
Either Blockbuster is the most incompetent service ever or the company is intentionally trying to make internet/ DVD rental services look bad to the general population, to protect their bread and butter rental brick and mortar stores.
So a message to Amazon, unless you can guarantee a three day turn around like Netflix, don't even friggin' bother!
Cheap is not un-American. Look at the products sold at Wal-Mart, in both price and quality they are cheap. What IS American is profit to corporate-america at any cost.
When corporate-america learns how to profit from municipal WiFi, then we'll have it. But of course, once corporate-america does that, most geeks won't want it.
Once again, if people use P2P they are NOT using iTunes. Thus, iTunes is hurt by piracy as much as Sony is. They both sell content and they both have an incentive to stop piracy.
First you say that Apple doesn't "create" content. When I point out that Sony doesn't create content either, you change it to "own."
Sure Apple doesn't "own" content, BUT IT STILL SELLS CONTENT! Thus, it is a CONTENT company.
And like I said before, Apple's iTunes is harmed by the use of P2P and illegal trading as much as Sony. If people used P2P exclusively, iTunes would fail.
So you admit that Sony creates no content, that it pays bands to create it for them. In fact, name one bit of content that was created by a corporation and NOT created by humans!
Also, the more people us P2P the less they use iTunes, so yes, Apple has lots to lose.
I don't know what this concept is so difficult. Apple has this little project called iTunes. It sells this stuff called music. Music is sometimes referred to as content.
Sony sells content too. But nether company actually produces content. Sony signs a band to create a CD or signs a producer to create a movie. Thank god that corporations CANNOT produce or create content. That type of job still requires a human.
I agree it's true with "most media companies." But it is NOT true of most tech companies. Most MP3/portable music players simply allow you to copy MP3s on and off without any impediment.
That's Sony's problem. It's trying hard to protect its content division, while killing its tech division in the process.
Apple sells content through it's iTunes store. Sure Apple doesn't "create" content, but then again, neither does Sony. Apple contracts for the right to distribute music. Sony signs contracts with musicians who create music and with producers who create movies.
Apple's iTunes is hurt by P2P piracy in the same way that Sony's music division is.
I clicked the link and created a random article. Before it appeared I went to the bathroom, got a snack, etc etc etc. A while later I came back and started reading the article.
By then I forgot all about it being randomly generated. I was trying to read it and I asked myself, "Why the fuck did I open this link, it makes no sense?!" A couple seconds later I remembered.
They are changing the IP address without any reboot of the modem (or the computer).
Like I said, I set up the computer, tested tightVNC and everything worked. I got home and the IP changed. He did not shut down or restart anything.
I had him email me so I could get his new IP. After about an hour that stopped working. Once again, he did not shut down or restart anything.
I know that his DSL is expensive, but that's the ONLY internet connection he has. He lives in the middle of nowwhere and there are not even any local dial-up services for him to use. I find it bizzare that DSL was made available before dial-up.
I'm going to try out no-ip.com. Thanks again for the tip!
I've been trying to switch to Linux from Windows for several years. I always have trouble trying to get something working or to get some software to complete a certain task. I have to search through thousands of sites to find the correct answer I need, and at times, it can be frustrating.
Contrast that to the fantastic experience I had with BeOS 5 Personal Edition. It installed in under five minutes. Set up all my hardware, including a TV card. For any task I wanted, I could simply go to bebits.com and get what I needed. It wasn't too long that I dumped Windows completely and used Be exclusively. If Be hadn't folded, I'd probably still be using BeOS to this day. For the first time in my life I knew what it felt like to be a mac-head. I truly loved BeOS on an emotional level.
I can't help but think that because BeOS had a single company behind it, that switching was made much easier. While open source is great for getting something to work. Proprietary software is great for making the process easy and pleasurable. (Of course Microsoft is changing that rule via Product Activation. Calling up and asking permission to change your hardware is about as frustrating an experience as you can get.)
I think you're missing my point. (Probably because I was trying harder to be funny versus insightful.)
Naspter was more than willing to work out deals with musicians, but he took a hard line approach. He never said, "Gee, Napster would be real useful for upcoming musicians." He never said, "Napster is a great idea, if only we could figure out a way to get paid from it." His approach against Naspter was zero-sum.
And it was that hard-line approach that was hypocritical. That P2P could help bands in the same way that tape sharing helped his.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're only playing against the environment, then why in the fuck is it a multiplayer game? Clearly since OTHERS are playing, you're playing against some of them. Since that's the case, what's the point of quickly making your way through a game by merely paying money? Shouldn't the PLAYING be the fun part?! Because if the playing isn't fun, then why play at all?
The original poster asked what happens when the worth of the investments disappear. I merely pointed out that that happens all the time.
I agree. Can you imagine playing chess with someone who could buy the best next move? Or playing UT with someone who could buy all the health he needed?
This move destroys all game play. And as you say, it will also destroy the game.
The same thing that happens to the investors of a "hot" dot.com company that eventually goes bankrupt. Sony isn't the first company to devise a system that makes investments suddenly worthless. Such systems have been around since money was first invented.
UTT stands for Ultra-Turbo-Technology. It's an advanced memory system created by everyone's favorite company, Rambus.
I was worried that successful legitimate services like iTunes would hinder the flow of free P2P music. Let's praise the Canadian government for helping to stamp out legitimate online music!
I'll say it for a THIRD time. Texas is under no obligation to provide internet access. However, once a state does provide it, it cannot censor it. That's the law. It's just that simple.
"On a last note, I find it funny how porn always seems to fall under free speech while God or Christ falls under separation of church and state."
I don't see anything funny about this. The first amendment to the US constitution says that the government cannot establish a religion. You may be a Christian, but what you fail to realize is that everyone else is not. Thus, the founding fathers wanted the state to take a neutral position on religion. I wouldn't want to live in your ideal Christian state anymore than you'd want to live in a Muslim state.
The first amendment also says that the government cannot abridge freedom of speech. That means what it says, that the government cannot censor what we watch, hear, etc.
If you love the Constitution so much, I strongly suggest you actually take the time to read it!
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Once the government provides access, it cannot censor portions of that access other than to protect children.
"They are not blocking free speech."
What planet do you live on? On earth when a government BLOCKS access to content it is BLOCKING free speech. That's what filters do.
"Why not thank Texas for providing access?"
I think the access Texas provides is great. I thank them for providing access. But I think it's wrong for the state to decide what I cannot see. Heck, it's not only wrong, it's illegal.
If you don't like our nation's constitution, I strongly suggest you move out, because you're ruining it for the rest of us.
Forwards or backwards, you're looking at it wrong.
First, if the public doesn't approve of pornography, then how are they ever going to be exposed to it? By accidentally typing www.youngsluts.com in their browser?! By accidentally searching for "young sluts" in google?!
Second, I agree that anti-pornography laws are passed all the time by righteous legislatures more concerned with getting the elderly vote than protecting our right. But you should also be aware that these laws are struck down time and time again. In the real world, the only porn that is illegal involve children or snuff films.
And here's the law on a government's ability to censor. If Texas did NOT provide any WiFi access, it would not be censoring anything. It has no duty to provide internet access. However, once it starts providing such access, it cannot censor other than to protect children.
That's why you see filtering software in libraries, to protect children. But adults can bypass those filters for their own research.
Oh come on, Trent is about a sugary as they come. He's basically an angry Inxs. You want real inaccessible music? Try John Zorn, Brujeria, or Throbbing Gristle. Trent is nothing but a pansy poser. He's to the 90s as Sammy Hagar was to the 80s.
Heck, what if you use a text based browser like Lynks?!
What if you're deaf with the radio on?
What if you're blind with the TV on but the sound off?
The "solution" is that there is NO fucking contract. Advertisers take the risk that no one will pay attention. If they're not willing to take that risk, then they are free to stop advertising.
You're safe to go to the bathroom during commercials. You can have a conversation with your friends at the bar, even though the blaring TV is showing a commercial. When a commercial comes on the radio, you're free to change stations.
And anyone who thinks otherwise should be shot. I'm serious.
I've been using Netflix for about a year and a half now. I get anywhere from 10 to 16 movies a week with its 8 movies at a time deal.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I get a three-day turn around on movies. E.g., if I mail them back on Monday, it'll get them Tuesday and mail back the same day, which means I'll get the new ones on Wednesday.
Contrast that to the god-awful experience I had with Blockbuster. It would take about 9 days to get a movie and the same going back. In fact, TWO MONTHS after quitting, they finally got a movie I sent back two months earlier. TWO FIGGIN' MONTHS TO GET A MOVIE?!
Either Blockbuster is the most incompetent service ever or the company is intentionally trying to make internet/ DVD rental services look bad to the general population, to protect their bread and butter rental brick and mortar stores.
So a message to Amazon, unless you can guarantee a three day turn around like Netflix, don't even friggin' bother!
Cheap is not un-American. Look at the products sold at Wal-Mart, in both price and quality they are cheap. What IS American is profit to corporate-america at any cost.
When corporate-america learns how to profit from municipal WiFi, then we'll have it. But of course, once corporate-america does that, most geeks won't want it.
Tom Yager is a moron!
Once again, if people use P2P they are NOT using iTunes. Thus, iTunes is hurt by piracy as much as Sony is. They both sell content and they both have an incentive to stop piracy.
First you say that Apple doesn't "create" content. When I point out that Sony doesn't create content either, you change it to "own."
Sure Apple doesn't "own" content, BUT IT STILL SELLS CONTENT! Thus, it is a CONTENT company.
And like I said before, Apple's iTunes is harmed by the use of P2P and illegal trading as much as Sony. If people used P2P exclusively, iTunes would fail.
So you admit that Sony creates no content, that it pays bands to create it for them. In fact, name one bit of content that was created by a corporation and NOT created by humans!
Also, the more people us P2P the less they use iTunes, so yes, Apple has lots to lose.
So, what was your point?
I don't know what this concept is so difficult. Apple has this little project called iTunes. It sells this stuff called music. Music is sometimes referred to as content.
Sony sells content too. But nether company actually produces content. Sony signs a band to create a CD or signs a producer to create a movie. Thank god that corporations CANNOT produce or create content. That type of job still requires a human.
I agree it's true with "most media companies." But it is NOT true of most tech companies. Most MP3/portable music players simply allow you to copy MP3s on and off without any impediment.
That's Sony's problem. It's trying hard to protect its content division, while killing its tech division in the process.
Apple sells content through it's iTunes store. Sure Apple doesn't "create" content, but then again, neither does Sony. Apple contracts for the right to distribute music. Sony signs contracts with musicians who create music and with producers who create movies.
Apple's iTunes is hurt by P2P piracy in the same way that Sony's music division is.
I know this has been said, but Sony is run by a bunch of morons! THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CONSUMERS WANT!
I DON'T WANT to convert my files before playing them. I WANT to be able to share files with my friends. I WANT it easy not artificially difficult!
Sony has to make a decision: Is it a content company or a technology company? It's getting quite obvious that it can't be both!
(And here's the rub, how does Apple manage to succeed as both a content and tech company?!)
I clicked the link and created a random article. Before it appeared I went to the bathroom, got a snack, etc etc etc. A while later I came back and started reading the article.
By then I forgot all about it being randomly generated. I was trying to read it and I asked myself, "Why the fuck did I open this link, it makes no sense?!" A couple seconds later I remembered.
They are changing the IP address without any reboot of the modem (or the computer).
Like I said, I set up the computer, tested tightVNC and everything worked. I got home and the IP changed. He did not shut down or restart anything.
I had him email me so I could get his new IP. After about an hour that stopped working. Once again, he did not shut down or restart anything.
I know that his DSL is expensive, but that's the ONLY internet connection he has. He lives in the middle of nowwhere and there are not even any local dial-up services for him to use. I find it bizzare that DSL was made available before dial-up.
I'm going to try out no-ip.com. Thanks again for the tip!
I've been trying to switch to Linux from Windows for several years. I always have trouble trying to get something working or to get some software to complete a certain task. I have to search through thousands of sites to find the correct answer I need, and at times, it can be frustrating.
Contrast that to the fantastic experience I had with BeOS 5 Personal Edition. It installed in under five minutes. Set up all my hardware, including a TV card. For any task I wanted, I could simply go to bebits.com and get what I needed. It wasn't too long that I dumped Windows completely and used Be exclusively. If Be hadn't folded, I'd probably still be using BeOS to this day. For the first time in my life I knew what it felt like to be a mac-head. I truly loved BeOS on an emotional level.
I can't help but think that because BeOS had a single company behind it, that switching was made much easier. While open source is great for getting something to work. Proprietary software is great for making the process easy and pleasurable. (Of course Microsoft is changing that rule via Product Activation. Calling up and asking permission to change your hardware is about as frustrating an experience as you can get.)
I think you're missing my point. (Probably because I was trying harder to be funny versus insightful.)
Naspter was more than willing to work out deals with musicians, but he took a hard line approach. He never said, "Gee, Napster would be real useful for upcoming musicians." He never said, "Napster is a great idea, if only we could figure out a way to get paid from it." His approach against Naspter was zero-sum.
And it was that hard-line approach that was hypocritical. That P2P could help bands in the same way that tape sharing helped his.