I agree that in the short term, globalization drops prices and thereby increases the standard of living... however, in the long term the labor force moves inexorably toward the area of least resistance... the lowest wages, the worst conditions, the least regulations. The idea is that unfettered capitalism will find a balance on its own, and in a way it will... maximizing profit by minimizing expensess... including the standard of living of those in its employee.
In other words, when people locally can't find work because it's legal for someone else to do it for seven cents an hour in another country under sweat-shop conditions, that $49 DVD player is even more out of reach to them than it was a few years ago when it was $299 and they were making 20K.
Still, the original speaker was talking about labor practices, not quotas and terrifs. I believe these 'solutions' may be too heavy-handed... by cutting out the opportunity for domestic companies to exploit cheap labor, they will find themselves at a large disadvantage to international companies who can. Either way, the rich westernized nations will lose because their standard of living is simply too far above the rest of the world to maintain without complete isolationism if these practices are allowed to continue.
Perhaps there is no way to keep a line in the sand between the haves and have-nots of today on an international scale. Still, this mass-employment of slave labor and sweat shop workers doesn't seem to bode well for the eventual average global standard of living that will emerge. I would argue that it would be in the international community's best interest to ban, not globalization, but these these practices of exploitation. Cheap labor is great for CEOs who want to squeeze a few more bucks out of their companies and make their investors happy at the same time, but it will only serve to internationally reduce the value of human labor itself.
I think that hits on something that's apparent with Open Source. Open Source seems to be really good at creating the technical underpinnings of larger systems... things like programming languages, web servers, Operating Systems, and especially cross-platform libraries. There's really no one else out there who will spend the time to make their libraries cross-platform.
Still, I think Open Source developers shouldn't assume that releasing source code to the public is going to be a magic bullet, or even wise, for every single product. Certainly things like voting machines, commercial "do-it-all" software packages, etc. can benefit from this because of exactly what the parent described, the "you can inspect the foundation" effect.
Realistically, for better or worse, 95% of users will not actually care that the source code is available, would never want to look at it, and even if they were skilled programmers would not want to take the time to understand the (often written completely in C) incredibly large and complex systems that the projects implement.
I think Open Source projects could do more to encourage closed-source developers to adopt the standard libraries they create. For example, I think it's counter-productive to require users who make use of an un-modified code library to release any source code just because it simply makes calls to the base library. I know there are several different licenses out there, but I recently ran across one that would only allow me to use the library in a closed-source system if I dynamically linked it. Don't provisions like this do more harm than good if the goal is trying to encourage cross-platform development?
As for the article, I thought the author described very well the best-in-breed practices used in Open Source and how they could be applied, but the article didn't seem to be very much about Openness or Closdness... simply about processes that Open Source development (such as CVS) has created.
I do think something needs to be done as well... simply eradicating tariffs causes wealth to flow in the direction of least resistance... ie to the places with the most horrible conditions and lowest pay. Raising them, however, is seen as threatening or unfair by the rest of the world.
Perhaps instead of negotiating piecemeal free-trade agreements with "trading blocks" we should create a comprehensive trade agreement that applied to all countries evenly... it would list all the regulations and rules that we have here in the USA and assign them all percentage points. Follow the same rule, get those percentage points knocked off your country's tariff. Don't? Well, you can still trade with us but your goods will cost a little more to keep the playing field even. We might also assign grades of some sort to different countries based on how well they comply so that consumers could tell that their Nike's were created under sweatshop conditions by the big F on them. I don't know how other countries would respond to such a move, but I don't think we can just allow them to undercut us by treating their people like dogs.
The only other option I could see would be to make it some sort of crime to knowingly sell products in the US that were created under especially horrible conditions, such as slave labor for example. Then retail outlets who helped support the supply chain would be fined.
Still, if tariffs get too high, they just force things underground and that can bring crime and corruption and still hurt the economy.
Another thing that might help the situation would be to define rules that govern the maximum percentage difference between the average labor salary and the average management salary. As companies have gotten bigger and bigger, the CEO's salaries have become massive percentages of the entire net income of the company. Most big companies can certainly afford to pay their people more, but it just ends up going to the management instead. At least this way the management would have to raise everyone's salary if they wanted a raise themselves.
Finally, I have always thought that forcing anyone who bought a stock on the stock market to hold onto it for a minimum of 6 months before they could trade it away would kill the entire "gambling" short term quarter to quarter hype-cycle of the stock market and bring it back more in line with the idea of making long-term investments in a company you believe in. With shareholders that were more interested in the long term viability of a company, layoffs, over-paid management, and off-shoring would surly be reduced considerably.
Personally, I don't think you could be further off from the truth.
Without government over-site, our capitalist system would have merged into larger and larger companies, making goods so cheaply and efficiently that the barrier to entry in the market sector is insurmountable. Microsoft may be a horrible monopoly, but compared to the trusts that had cropped up before there were any anti-trust laws it's a small fry.
Another way the government intervenes is to change the interest rate because the problem with unchecked capitalism is that everything spirals up and up until it goes out of control and then crashes down just as far... the Fed tries to stabilize this a bit by changing interest rates and putting in rules that automatically will shut down the stock market and such and thus far has managed to avoid a crash of the magnitude of the one that happened in the 20's. Personally, though, I think the system of turning companies into a high-stakes Las Vegas-style gambling game is more at fault in this, but I digress.
As for off-shoring workers;
The problem with "free trade" is that each part of the world has a vastly different level of technical sophistication, political stability, and moralistic ideals. Therefore, companies in varying places around the world CAN'T compete fairly. A "free trade" system actually puts companies that pay a living wage, that deal with things like worker's comp and family medical leave, that believe in human rights and protecting the environment at a distinct and severe disadvantage compared to those who operate with near or full-fledged slave-labor.
Furthermore, the ONLY way there can actually be an advantage to putting manufacturing and labor further away from the intended market is when loser regulations give those companies advantages or if the resources to create something cannot be found locally. Otherwise, it would simply increase shipping costs and be more expensive. Looking at it from a macroscopic perspective, "free trade" actually wastes more resources than it frees up because it requires a lot more "middle work" to get things from point A to point B. So the end result is that wealth flows out of point B to point A and doesn't return... it simply re-locates wealth to those areas that have the very worst and most inhumane working conditions on earth.
Aside from that, the more we offshore our labor, the more we discourage our own citizens from educating themselves, thus further exacerbating the situation by actually lowering the achievement level, and thus value, of workers here.
I think free trade tries to say that the more developed civilizations should all give up everything they've worked for to improve the quality of life of their citizens so that the standard of living throughout the world drops to some sort of average... but that's not capitalism, it's communism. In a capitalist system, those groups who work the hardest and create the most gain the most wealth. Do you really want a world where political borders cease to matter and we all become barely-paid wage-slaves to omni-powerful corporations?
What I was trying to do was put a finger on what exactly it was that has caused so many people to complain that N64 and GameCube games tend to be "for kids" and what Nintendo could do to target a more adult demographic.
Certainly the "mature content" moniker is obvious, and what people usually jump on when defending the GameCube, but there are also other factors including the ones I listed; story type and game-play difficulty. I would say that the latter is much more important than the former, but the point is that if you specifically want to target a more mature audience, an interesting concept is one way to do it.
Personally, the thing that has bugged me the most about many recent N64 games, for example, is simply the difficulty factor. I have nothing against Mario or colorful graphics (Actually I've been a fan since SMB1), and Zelda 64 is only one extreme example of an overly-easy game. Some of the puzzles might have been hard to figure out had they not been re-hashes of previous games, but there was just no difficulty involved in avoiding or dealing death. I actually did ignore whatever I could of what the fairy said, but it bothered me that they had killed the whole concept of experimentation. In the past, it was fun to try different strategies until you hit on one that worked, but now there's no need, just consult the in-game spoiler list.
Just having the information there takes away from the fun of trying to figure things out yourself because you know that you're just artificially making the game harder on yourself. I think part of of the fun of figuring things out is that you always wonder how long it took for everyone else to do it... knowing that the answer's one button press away kind of kills that whole idea.
Thing is, when games are as easy as Zelda 64 was for me, I feel more like I'm jumping through pointless hoops just to see the next story sequence... and when even THOSE are disappointing, it's hard to be enthusiastic about the whole game-play experience. There wasn't even any exploration involved, all the places you ever had to go were mostly just doors around the circumference of a big empty circle (which you get a complete mini-map of for free).
The funniest thing about it is that if you actually watch truly little kids play, they don't read the hints... or anything for that matter. They just want to jump around and have some fun chopping stuff or riding a horse and shooting arrows... BEING a super character... and when you get right down to it, that's what we all want. This is one thing Nintendo has historically done right. The problem is the packaging, not the ideas themselves. It's fun to just mess around for a while, but eventually you want some challenge, some direction. That's where a game that can be enjoyed by both kids and adults is separated from a mere kid's game.
I've never played Mario Sunshine, but I think the reason that people believe that the game targets kids before even giving it a chance is obvious. You might call it short-sighted, or say that they're missing out, but bad marketing and overly silly story ideas can kill sales and give your platform a bad image no matter how good the game really is. This is a perfect example of something that Nintendo could avoid if it chose to.
I agree that all three consoles have some very good games (I'd practically buy a GC JUST for Smash Bros.) and all of them also have a lot of blah ones. I don't think there is any one answer to which one console everyone should have. It all depends on the type of games you want and what the console offers and which one has the most that apeal to you as a gamer.
You make one point about the adult demographic, but you two others...
I think the biggest problems with many of Nintendo's offerings are not necessarily that they aren't super violent or suggestive, but that:
1) They're the story telling equivalent of a low-budget Saturday morning cartoon series. Adults tend to want stories with more interesting themes than "save the princess from the bad guy" and characters with more depth than their alignment and/or funny way of speaking. Certainly it depends on the game, and some people will alway skip through the story screens, but forcing the main character to never say a word just gets strange after a while, especially if the other characters are all talking. Personaly, I think they sould take a cue from Shrek and some of the other computer animated movies which have successfully targeted people of all ages.
2) They're too easy! We've been playing video games all our lives, we're not so hopeless as to need a little fairy to explain the weak point of every boss or to warn us every time a shadow appears at our feat that a hand will try to grab us in about 2 seconds. I think I died maybe twice during my entire time playing Zelda 64... and then not from monsters, from sliding off the edge of an invisible platform. Sure you can waste your life finding the 147th spider, but how are you supposed to feel like beating the game is an accomplishment when you're virtually assured of eventual victory given enough time? I've seen the little kids of today get overly frustrated playing games even as simple as Mario 64, but they still play and they get better... and besides, you don't have to STOP making games for little kids just because you make some targeted for adults.
Right, Mickey Mouse is a Trademark of the Disney Corporation so, even if Steam Boat Willie passes into the public domain, people will still not be able to legally create derivative works based on Mikey's likeness for the purpose of making money. All it will mean is that libraries and web sites could start distributing Steam Boat Willie and other older cartoons for free... or that the stories, but not any trademarked characters, could be used to create derivative works. Basically, Disney would cease to have a monopoly on those older works but trademarks, pictures,symbols, or phrases that identify a product as belonging to a particular business, do not expire as long as the corporation is in business.
I think the real reason that this bothers Disney is their whole "collector's item" mentality. They WANT the works to pass into as much oblivion as possible so they can make a big fuss whenever they finally re-release a certain movie or cartoon collection because the inaccessibility of the material makes it more valuable to people. Never seen those commercials where they say "Such and such a movie will be out for a limited time and then it goes back into the Disney Vault!"?
Basically, from a corporate stand point, they want absolute control over everything they have ever released to ensure its rarity and value as a collector's item.
When I was young, about in 3rd grade, I ran across my first book on computer programing in the school library... naturally it was a neat little colorfully illustrated book on the BASIC programming language. Unfortunately my family didn't have a computer at home at the time, but there isn't much syntax to the language anyway, and I ate the book up like candy. I actually sat down and wrote out all sorts of programs on our word-processor (fancy typewriters that used to be big but died out as computer prices came down) which I could never run.
Oh how I longed only to try my programs for real! But none of my friends who HAD computers knew anything about where to go in the system to look for a place that would accept input in BASIC. They probably had GWBASIC on there somewhere, but they certainly didn't know it. I actually remember the first time I got to run a program... it was in a toy store that was selling one of those "Kid's computer" type toys and it was on display. It said it could be programmed, so I went up and typed:
I can't begin to express how pleased I was to see "Hello, Shon!" appear on the screen just as I expected it to.
We finally got our first personal computer in 1994, but it wasn't for a long time that I realized that, buried deep in a directory, was a program called QBASIC, which I eventually had quite a run with.
This brings me to the question: As I've seen new computers ship over the years without even QBASIC on them, I feel bad for all those kids who'd like to try to program, but don't know how. Sure we have the internet now, but downloading something like GCC is probably a bit much to ask for a 3rd grader who's never used anything but Windows. I really think that Microsoft should create a Windows GUI version of QBASIC and include it in the start menu just to encourage kids to play around with it. Barring that, OS's like MacOS and Linux that include C/C++ compilers win lots of points in my book. One other thing that I think that has especially helped get kids interested in programming is making Web pages... they see a cool thing on some other page and they wanna learn how to do it. Java's pretty complex for most kids, but there's a huge incentive in that it takes relatively little effort to do something that will really impress your friends, while it can seem like languages like C/C++ let you do nothing but output text.
So yes, I think that all OS's should include some sort of compiler with a GUI as a basic part of the operating system. If a basic paint program and writing program are worth including, then a basic compiler is definitely worth including as well. Lots of kids are interested in programming a computer at some level, but have no idea where to start.
No, that's just not true. "64 bit" these days only tells you something about the size of a pointer but not much more.
We're talking about x86-64 right? It has the capability to operate on 64-bit integer data, and use 64-bit pointers, and retains x87's existing ability to operate on 64-bit floating point numbers with 80-bit internal accuracy, while gaining SSE2's ability to operate on 128-bit vectors.
It is very unlikely that on a well-defined 64 bit processors, half the processor remains idle when you use 32 bit operations.
From my understanding, that's exactly what happens. x86-64 simply extends the existing x86 standard of allowing each register to hold smaller values, but only a certain number of them by giving each portion of the register its own name. You don't gain access to 4 times the registers in 32-bit mode, unfortunately. In fact, you only have access to the standard 8 registers because 32-bit x86 only knows about 8 registers. But not even by running 32-bit data in 64-bit mode do you gain the ability to store two 32-bit values in each GPR.
Check out this chart from the article I linked in my earlier post.
Also, if you go over and check out this article on Ace's Hardware where they benchmark various applications on an Opteron, you'll find this excellent explanation for why I said it would double the speed when operating on 64-bit data. Again, specifically talking about x86-64 here:
The Opteron has 64-bit general purpose registers, so any code that uses 64-bit integer operations should benefit a lot - using 2 32-bit registers, to do a 64-bit integer multiply takes 4 32-bit multiplies, and a 64-bit add requires 2 32-bit adds. To show this we have a custom micro-benchmark just on the Opteron which performs a "dot product" operation on two arrays of integers, which requires a lot of multiplies, with 32-bit and 64-bit integer versions and x86-32 and x86-64 code, using GCC.
[chart omitted]
The x86-64 version is 33% faster for 32-bit integers, probably due to greater loop-unrolling. With 64-bit operations, the x86-64 version is a massive 354% (4.54x) faster, with a combination benefit of more registers and 64-bit processing. Notice also that the 64-bit x86-64 result is the same as the 32-bit x86-32 result - with double the complexity of the data, performance is the same.
So that's what I was talking about, it simply takes more time, more iterations, for a 32-bit processor (one that operates on 32-bit data) to virtually process a 64-bit variable.
Fixed point 64-bit math is something I hadn't considered, but you're right, that might be an alternative to using floating point.
Still, using SSE2 would probably be a better alternative for applications like DVD burning which require repetative instructions since you can process packages of 128-bit data all at once. That way you could instruct the processor to take in 4 32-bit floating point numbers (or 2 64-bit ones) at one time and do operations on them them in parallel rather than process one 64-bit fixed-point integer at a time.
x86-64 also has double the SSE 2 registers that the Pentium does (in 64-bit mode) as well, though they're the same size. I think it's fairly exciting that developers will be able to begin to assume SSE 2 support on all new systems once the Athlon 64 replaces the current Athlon.
Personally, the only thing I've used 64-bit integers on the current 32-bit platform for was high-resolution timing.
Actually, the biggest speed boost from operating in 64-bit mode comes from the fact that Opteron/Athlon 64 has twice the general purpose and SSE registers, and also is the first AMD processor to support SSE2. The low register count has always been a stumbling point for x86 processors compared to other technologies like the PowerPC, which have many, many more. This is the fastest and most vital memory to any processor so adding more was an awesome decision, but of course they only work in 64-bit mode.
The fact that it's 64-bit will only help you (double the speed, actually) if you're operating on 64-bit variables, which don't come up in general software very much, but are very good for scientific research, simulations, etc.
And yes, you can directly address more than 4GB of memory... in fact each processor has it's own memory controller built in which also adds to the speed a bit and means that in multi-processor systems each processor gets its own bank of DIMMs.
There's a wonderful article over at ArsTechnica which does a great job of explaining all the benefits of the x86-64 technology here.
Personally, I think CD sales would take off if, included on each music disk, was a data track which contained an unprotected (eg. MP3, OGG) encoded version of each song on the CD.
For one thing, this would be back-wards compatible with all existing CD Audio players. For another, it would be forward compatible with the emerging CD players capable of decoding encoded audio.
Mostly, though, it would make the process of "ripping" a CD practically instant... just drag the already encoded files off the CD.
Finally, to add even more value to a CD's purchase, bonus tracks from other artists, or even all the tracks previously released on other CDs that are no longer on sale for this artist could be released in encoded form only. Other types of bonuses that could be included would be interviews with the artists, live performances, karaoke versions of the featured tracks, etc.
Basically the idea here is that mainstream CDs almost never store 80 minutes of CD-Audio, leaving plenty of space for all sorts of encoded content extras that would give the CD value to the consumer above and beyond what they cold easily find on sharing networks, and the level of convenience would be similar or greater as they would get all sorts of content right away rather than having to meticulously search for and download each track and each bonus-feature one-by-one.
I think many people in America would still like to support their favorite artists at least once in a while by purchasing their album... but copy protection is exactly the wrong solution. Sharing music with one's friends is the new killer app of music, and trying to limit it is just simply missing the boat. Record companies should be looking for new and innovative ways to make music sharing easier and for new things to put on CDs to increase the value to the consumer.
--Shon
It surprises me that no one (at least at the top level) has mentioned this, but for the short term, what excites me the most about AMD's 64-bit implementation is the addition of new registers that comes with AMD finally designing the ISA themselves.
Here are some general specs on x86-64:
64-bit addressing 8 Additional GPRs (for a total of 16) GPR width increased to 64-bits 8 128-bit SSE registers (for a total of 16) 64-bit instruction pointer and relative addressing Flat address space (code, data, stack) --Ace's hardware (http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=1000 0218)
The fact that x86 has only had 8 General Purpose Registers has been the bane of its existence for quite a while... I think that this will be the main source of speed improvement over existing 32-bit apps when compiled for the x86-64 architecture, not the fact that the system can handle more precise numbers.
As far as selling these things, having worked in video game retail, the consumer is already very conscious of the idea of an n-bit processor from all the old console hype where the precision of the CPU was marketed as the primary "performance number" the way Mhz are on desktop PCs.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that in the short term, globalization drops prices and thereby increases the standard of living... however, in the long term the labor force moves inexorably toward the area of least resistance... the lowest wages, the worst conditions, the least regulations. The idea is that unfettered capitalism will find a balance on its own, and in a way it will... maximizing profit by minimizing expensess... including the standard of living of those in its employee.
In other words, when people locally can't find work because it's legal for someone else to do it for seven cents an hour in another country under sweat-shop conditions, that $49 DVD player is even more out of reach to them than it was a few years ago when it was $299 and they were making 20K.
Still, the original speaker was talking about labor practices, not quotas and terrifs. I believe these 'solutions' may be too heavy-handed... by cutting out the opportunity for domestic companies to exploit cheap labor, they will find themselves at a large disadvantage to international companies who can. Either way, the rich westernized nations will lose because their standard of living is simply too far above the rest of the world to maintain without complete isolationism if these practices are allowed to continue.
Perhaps there is no way to keep a line in the sand between the haves and have-nots of today on an international scale. Still, this mass-employment of slave labor and sweat shop workers doesn't seem to bode well for the eventual average global standard of living that will emerge. I would argue that it would be in the international community's best interest to ban, not globalization, but these these practices of exploitation. Cheap labor is great for CEOs who want to squeeze a few more bucks out of their companies and make their investors happy at the same time, but it will only serve to internationally reduce the value of human labor itself.
Eh, misread the chart ^_^; 10 decillion :x
--Stupid
Wouldn't it be easier just to say one quattuortrigintillion? ^_^
I think that hits on something that's apparent with Open Source. Open Source seems to be really good at creating the technical underpinnings of larger systems... things like programming languages, web servers, Operating Systems, and especially cross-platform libraries. There's really no one else out there who will spend the time to make their libraries cross-platform.
Still, I think Open Source developers shouldn't assume that releasing source code to the public is going to be a magic bullet, or even wise, for every single product. Certainly things like voting machines, commercial "do-it-all" software packages, etc. can benefit from this because of exactly what the parent described, the "you can inspect the foundation" effect.
Realistically, for better or worse, 95% of users will not actually care that the source code is available, would never want to look at it, and even if they were skilled programmers would not want to take the time to understand the (often written completely in C) incredibly large and complex systems that the projects implement.
I think Open Source projects could do more to encourage closed-source developers to adopt the standard libraries they create. For example, I think it's counter-productive to require users who make use of an un-modified code library to release any source code just because it simply makes calls to the base library. I know there are several different licenses out there, but I recently ran across one that would only allow me to use the library in a closed-source system if I dynamically linked it. Don't provisions like this do more harm than good if the goal is trying to encourage cross-platform development?
As for the article, I thought the author described very well the best-in-breed practices used in Open Source and how they could be applied, but the article didn't seem to be very much about Openness or Closdness... simply about processes that Open Source development (such as CVS) has created.
I do think something needs to be done as well... simply eradicating tariffs causes wealth to flow in the direction of least resistance... ie to the places with the most horrible conditions and lowest pay. Raising them, however, is seen as threatening or unfair by the rest of the world.
Perhaps instead of negotiating piecemeal free-trade agreements with "trading blocks" we should create a comprehensive trade agreement that applied to all countries evenly... it would list all the regulations and rules that we have here in the USA and assign them all percentage points. Follow the same rule, get those percentage points knocked off your country's tariff. Don't? Well, you can still trade with us but your goods will cost a little more to keep the playing field even. We might also assign grades of some sort to different countries based on how well they comply so that consumers could tell that their Nike's were created under sweatshop conditions by the big F on them. I don't know how other countries would respond to such a move, but I don't think we can just allow them to undercut us by treating their people like dogs.
The only other option I could see would be to make it some sort of crime to knowingly sell products in the US that were created under especially horrible conditions, such as slave labor for example. Then retail outlets who helped support the supply chain would be fined.
Still, if tariffs get too high, they just force things underground and that can bring crime and corruption and still hurt the economy.
Another thing that might help the situation would be to define rules that govern the maximum percentage difference between the average labor salary and the average management salary. As companies have gotten bigger and bigger, the CEO's salaries have become massive percentages of the entire net income of the company. Most big companies can certainly afford to pay their people more, but it just ends up going to the management instead. At least this way the management would have to raise everyone's salary if they wanted a raise themselves.
Finally, I have always thought that forcing anyone who bought a stock on the stock market to hold onto it for a minimum of 6 months before they could trade it away would kill the entire "gambling" short term quarter to quarter hype-cycle of the stock market and bring it back more in line with the idea of making long-term investments in a company you believe in. With shareholders that were more interested in the long term viability of a company, layoffs, over-paid management, and off-shoring would surly be reduced considerably.
Personally, I don't think you could be further off from the truth.
Without government over-site, our capitalist system would have merged into larger and larger companies, making goods so cheaply and efficiently that the barrier to entry in the market sector is insurmountable. Microsoft may be a horrible monopoly, but compared to the trusts that had cropped up before there were any anti-trust laws it's a small fry.
Another way the government intervenes is to change the interest rate because the problem with unchecked capitalism is that everything spirals up and up until it goes out of control and then crashes down just as far... the Fed tries to stabilize this a bit by changing interest rates and putting in rules that automatically will shut down the stock market and such and thus far has managed to avoid a crash of the magnitude of the one that happened in the 20's. Personally, though, I think the system of turning companies into a high-stakes Las Vegas-style gambling game is more at fault in this, but I digress.
As for off-shoring workers;
The problem with "free trade" is that each part of the world has a vastly different level of technical sophistication, political stability, and moralistic ideals. Therefore, companies in varying places around the world CAN'T compete fairly. A "free trade" system actually puts companies that pay a living wage, that deal with things like worker's comp and family medical leave, that believe in human rights and protecting the environment at a distinct and severe disadvantage compared to those who operate with near or full-fledged slave-labor.
Furthermore, the ONLY way there can actually be an advantage to putting manufacturing and labor further away from the intended market is when loser regulations give those companies advantages or if the resources to create something cannot be found locally. Otherwise, it would simply increase shipping costs and be more expensive. Looking at it from a macroscopic perspective, "free trade" actually wastes more resources than it frees up because it requires a lot more "middle work" to get things from point A to point B. So the end result is that wealth flows out of point B to point A and doesn't return... it simply re-locates wealth to those areas that have the very worst and most inhumane working conditions on earth.
Aside from that, the more we offshore our labor, the more we discourage our own citizens from educating themselves, thus further exacerbating the situation by actually lowering the achievement level, and thus value, of workers here.
I think free trade tries to say that the more developed civilizations should all give up everything they've worked for to improve the quality of life of their citizens so that the standard of living throughout the world drops to some sort of average... but that's not capitalism, it's communism. In a capitalist system, those groups who work the hardest and create the most gain the most wealth. Do you really want a world where political borders cease to matter and we all become barely-paid wage-slaves to omni-powerful corporations?
What I was trying to do was put a finger on what exactly it was that has caused so many people to complain that N64 and GameCube games tend to be "for kids" and what Nintendo could do to target a more adult demographic.
Certainly the "mature content" moniker is obvious, and what people usually jump on when defending the GameCube, but there are also other factors including the ones I listed; story type and game-play difficulty. I would say that the latter is much more important than the former, but the point is that if you specifically want to target a more mature audience, an interesting concept is one way to do it.
Personally, the thing that has bugged me the most about many recent N64 games, for example, is simply the difficulty factor. I have nothing against Mario or colorful graphics (Actually I've been a fan since SMB1), and Zelda 64 is only one extreme example of an overly-easy game. Some of the puzzles might have been hard to figure out had they not been re-hashes of previous games, but there was just no difficulty involved in avoiding or dealing death. I actually did ignore whatever I could of what the fairy said, but it bothered me that they had killed the whole concept of experimentation. In the past, it was fun to try different strategies until you hit on one that worked, but now there's no need, just consult the in-game spoiler list.
Just having the information there takes away from the fun of trying to figure things out yourself because you know that you're just artificially making the game harder on yourself. I think part of of the fun of figuring things out is that you always wonder how long it took for everyone else to do it... knowing that the answer's one button press away kind of kills that whole idea.
Thing is, when games are as easy as Zelda 64 was for me, I feel more like I'm jumping through pointless hoops just to see the next story sequence... and when even THOSE are disappointing, it's hard to be enthusiastic about the whole game-play experience. There wasn't even any exploration involved, all the places you ever had to go were mostly just doors around the circumference of a big empty circle (which you get a complete mini-map of for free).
The funniest thing about it is that if you actually watch truly little kids play, they don't read the hints... or anything for that matter. They just want to jump around and have some fun chopping stuff or riding a horse and shooting arrows... BEING a super character... and when you get right down to it, that's what we all want. This is one thing Nintendo has historically done right. The problem is the packaging, not the ideas themselves. It's fun to just mess around for a while, but eventually you want some challenge, some direction. That's where a game that can be enjoyed by both kids and adults is separated from a mere kid's game.
I've never played Mario Sunshine, but I think the reason that people believe that the game targets kids before even giving it a chance is obvious. You might call it short-sighted, or say that they're missing out, but bad marketing and overly silly story ideas can kill sales and give your platform a bad image no matter how good the game really is. This is a perfect example of something that Nintendo could avoid if it chose to.
I agree that all three consoles have some very good games (I'd practically buy a GC JUST for Smash Bros.) and all of them also have a lot of blah ones. I don't think there is any one answer to which one console everyone should have. It all depends on the type of games you want and what the console offers and which one has the most that apeal to you as a gamer.
You make one point about the adult demographic, but you two others...
I think the biggest problems with many of Nintendo's offerings are not necessarily that they aren't super violent or suggestive, but that:
1) They're the story telling equivalent of a low-budget Saturday morning cartoon series. Adults tend to want stories with more interesting themes than "save the princess from the bad guy" and characters with more depth than their alignment and/or funny way of speaking. Certainly it depends on the game, and some people will alway skip through the story screens, but forcing the main character to never say a word just gets strange after a while, especially if the other characters are all talking. Personaly, I think they sould take a cue from Shrek and some of the other computer animated movies which have successfully targeted people of all ages.
2) They're too easy! We've been playing video games all our lives, we're not so hopeless as to need a little fairy to explain the weak point of every boss or to warn us every time a shadow appears at our feat that a hand will try to grab us in about 2 seconds. I think I died maybe twice during my entire time playing Zelda 64... and then not from monsters, from sliding off the edge of an invisible platform. Sure you can waste your life finding the 147th spider, but how are you supposed to feel like beating the game is an accomplishment when you're virtually assured of eventual victory given enough time? I've seen the little kids of today get overly frustrated playing games even as simple as Mario 64, but they still play and they get better... and besides, you don't have to STOP making games for little kids just because you make some targeted for adults.
Right, Mickey Mouse is a Trademark of the Disney Corporation so, even if Steam Boat Willie passes into the public domain, people will still not be able to legally create derivative works based on Mikey's likeness for the purpose of making money. All it will mean is that libraries and web sites could start distributing Steam Boat Willie and other older cartoons for free... or that the stories, but not any trademarked characters, could be used to create derivative works. Basically, Disney would cease to have a monopoly on those older works but trademarks, pictures,symbols, or phrases that identify a product as belonging to a particular business, do not expire as long as the corporation is in business.
I think the real reason that this bothers Disney is their whole "collector's item" mentality. They WANT the works to pass into as much oblivion as possible so they can make a big fuss whenever they finally re-release a certain movie or cartoon collection because the inaccessibility of the material makes it more valuable to people. Never seen those commercials where they say "Such and such a movie will be out for a limited time and then it goes back into the Disney Vault!"?
Basically, from a corporate stand point, they want absolute control over everything they have ever released to ensure its rarity and value as a collector's item.
--Shon
When I was young, about in 3rd grade, I ran across my first book on computer programing in the school library... naturally it was a neat little colorfully illustrated book on the BASIC programming language. Unfortunately my family didn't have a computer at home at the time, but there isn't much syntax to the language anyway, and I ate the book up like candy. I actually sat down and wrote out all sorts of programs on our word-processor (fancy typewriters that used to be big but died out as computer prices came down) which I could never run.
Oh how I longed only to try my programs for real! But none of my friends who HAD computers knew anything about where to go in the system to look for a place that would accept input in BASIC. They probably had GWBASIC on there somewhere, but they certainly didn't know it. I actually remember the first time I got to run a program... it was in a toy store that was selling one of those "Kid's computer" type toys and it was on display. It said it could be programmed, so I went up and typed:
PRINT "What's your name?"
INPUT $NAME
PRINT "Hello, "; $NAME; "!"
I can't begin to express how pleased I was to see "Hello, Shon!" appear on the screen just as I expected it to.
We finally got our first personal computer in 1994, but it wasn't for a long time that I realized that, buried deep in a directory, was a program called QBASIC, which I eventually had quite a run with.
This brings me to the question: As I've seen new computers ship over the years without even QBASIC on them, I feel bad for all those kids who'd like to try to program, but don't know how. Sure we have the internet now, but downloading something like GCC is probably a bit much to ask for a 3rd grader who's never used anything but Windows. I really think that Microsoft should create a Windows GUI version of QBASIC and include it in the start menu just to encourage kids to play around with it. Barring that, OS's like MacOS and Linux that include C/C++ compilers win lots of points in my book. One other thing that I think that has especially helped get kids interested in programming is making Web pages... they see a cool thing on some other page and they wanna learn how to do it. Java's pretty complex for most kids, but there's a huge incentive in that it takes relatively little effort to do something that will really impress your friends, while it can seem like languages like C/C++ let you do nothing but output text.
So yes, I think that all OS's should include some sort of compiler with a GUI as a basic part of the operating system. If a basic paint program and writing program are worth including, then a basic compiler is definitely worth including as well. Lots of kids are interested in programming a computer at some level, but have no idea where to start.
From my understanding, that's exactly what happens. x86-64 simply extends the existing x86 standard of allowing each register to hold smaller values, but only a certain number of them by giving each portion of the register its own name. You don't gain access to 4 times the registers in 32-bit mode, unfortunately. In fact, you only have access to the standard 8 registers because 32-bit x86 only knows about 8 registers. But not even by running 32-bit data in 64-bit mode do you gain the ability to store two 32-bit values in each GPR.
Check out this chart from the article I linked in my earlier post.
Also, if you go over and check out this article on Ace's Hardware where they benchmark various applications on an Opteron, you'll find this excellent explanation for why I said it would double the speed when operating on 64-bit data. Again, specifically talking about x86-64 here:So that's what I was talking about, it simply takes more time, more iterations, for a 32-bit processor (one that operates on 32-bit data) to virtually process a 64-bit variable.
--Shon
Fixed point 64-bit math is something I hadn't considered, but you're right, that might be an alternative to using floating point.
Still, using SSE2 would probably be a better alternative for applications like DVD burning which require repetative instructions since you can process packages of 128-bit data all at once. That way you could instruct the processor to take in 4 32-bit floating point numbers (or 2 64-bit ones) at one time and do operations on them them in parallel rather than process one 64-bit fixed-point integer at a time.
x86-64 also has double the SSE 2 registers that the Pentium does (in 64-bit mode) as well, though they're the same size. I think it's fairly exciting that developers will be able to begin to assume SSE 2 support on all new systems once the Athlon 64 replaces the current Athlon.
Personally, the only thing I've used 64-bit integers on the current 32-bit platform for was high-resolution timing.
--Shon
Actually, the biggest speed boost from operating in 64-bit mode comes from the fact that Opteron/Athlon 64 has twice the general purpose and SSE registers, and also is the first AMD processor to support SSE2. The low register count has always been a stumbling point for x86 processors compared to other technologies like the PowerPC, which have many, many more. This is the fastest and most vital memory to any processor so adding more was an awesome decision, but of course they only work in 64-bit mode.
The fact that it's 64-bit will only help you (double the speed, actually) if you're operating on 64-bit variables, which don't come up in general software very much, but are very good for scientific research, simulations, etc.
And yes, you can directly address more than 4GB of memory... in fact each processor has it's own memory controller built in which also adds to the speed a bit and means that in multi-processor systems each processor gets its own bank of DIMMs.
There's a wonderful article over at ArsTechnica which does a great job of explaining all the benefits of the x86-64 technology here.
--Shon
Personally, I think CD sales would take off if, included on each music disk, was a data track which contained an unprotected (eg. MP3, OGG) encoded version of each song on the CD. For one thing, this would be back-wards compatible with all existing CD Audio players. For another, it would be forward compatible with the emerging CD players capable of decoding encoded audio. Mostly, though, it would make the process of "ripping" a CD practically instant... just drag the already encoded files off the CD. Finally, to add even more value to a CD's purchase, bonus tracks from other artists, or even all the tracks previously released on other CDs that are no longer on sale for this artist could be released in encoded form only. Other types of bonuses that could be included would be interviews with the artists, live performances, karaoke versions of the featured tracks, etc. Basically the idea here is that mainstream CDs almost never store 80 minutes of CD-Audio, leaving plenty of space for all sorts of encoded content extras that would give the CD value to the consumer above and beyond what they cold easily find on sharing networks, and the level of convenience would be similar or greater as they would get all sorts of content right away rather than having to meticulously search for and download each track and each bonus-feature one-by-one. I think many people in America would still like to support their favorite artists at least once in a while by purchasing their album... but copy protection is exactly the wrong solution. Sharing music with one's friends is the new killer app of music, and trying to limit it is just simply missing the boat. Record companies should be looking for new and innovative ways to make music sharing easier and for new things to put on CDs to increase the value to the consumer. --Shon
It surprises me that no one (at least at the top level) has mentioned this, but for the short term, what excites me the most about AMD's 64-bit implementation is the addition of new registers that comes with AMD finally designing the ISA themselves.
0 0218)
Here are some general specs on x86-64:
64-bit addressing
8 Additional GPRs (for a total of 16)
GPR width increased to 64-bits
8 128-bit SSE registers (for a total of 16)
64-bit instruction pointer and relative addressing
Flat address space (code, data, stack)
--Ace's hardware (http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=100
The fact that x86 has only had 8 General Purpose Registers has been the bane of its existence for quite a while... I think that this will be the main source of speed improvement over existing 32-bit apps when compiled for the x86-64 architecture, not the fact that the system can handle more precise numbers.
As far as selling these things, having worked in video game retail, the consumer is already very conscious of the idea of an n-bit processor from all the old console hype where the precision of the CPU was marketed as the primary "performance number" the way Mhz are on desktop PCs.
--Shon