My guess is rather than confuse us with trying to show and explain a complicated 3D game on a 2D screen in 2 hours, they'll change the Battle Room to be something more familiar to us. Hopefully not rollerball...
Judging by how the summary was presented, it was submitted to troll us up into a frenzy about the evil DMCA. If, for example, it mentioned the part where the drives had 77 pirated video games, you could argue I was wrong.
It would have been newsworthy if ALL they were doing was installing a modchip and a large (empty) hard drive, and NOT pirating anything. If they were then charged under the DMCA, we could get excited about something finally being overturned for being blatantly evil.
I can't get worked up over people who were actually pirating and, worse, profiting, from piracy. Let em rot.
If it were my school district, I'd lobby to have ID removed from the curriculum. The fact is I don't live there, my kids don't attend school there, hence I really don't have any business telling them what to teach.
I do not think the federal government should be deciding what is or is not taught in school any more than the pope should. The entire purpose of having hundreds of representatives and senators is to somehow ensure all regions with clashing views about certain things, get represented in the federal government fairly, NOT to homogenize them all into a single popular belief. Why does the federal government need to be involved AT ALL in this issue? It does not seem to be a constitutional issue, or certainly not a clear one...no one is being physically, emotionally or financially hurt by the teaching of ID, nor are their rights being trampled on. It's not, strictly speaking, religion. Shouldn't the local population be the deciding faction?
It is a pretty physically demanding job, and while I'm sure many women out there CAN do it, I'm not sure that they'd WANT to do it, and be in shape for it. It's one thing to get up and do some extra push-ups to keep up with the men in the fire department...it's another to go throw trash in a truck. Saving lives and putting out fires is a lot more motivating than waking up at 5am to go lift 1000 30lb+ trash cans over your head.
Sure, but life in NY before Giuliani was dangerous and unpleasant. So much so that people were leaving the city in droves. During his time and after, it was actually a nice place. You could go to 42nd street and not be mugged, propositioned, killed, vandalized or otherwise molested. While central park remains a place you shouldn't go at night, it is at least no longer a nightly source of news.
Sure, the guy acted like a dictator, but he did good things. Most people never thought NYC could be saved, it was too big and too 0wn3d. I'd say that gives him more justification for Man of the Year than getting insanely rich off selling lemon software.
I took his comment as a suggested starting place, something to agree with in principle without yet nitpicking on the details. One poster brought up the valid point where a third party asks a second party about the identity of the first ("Who is that guy?"), and the second party had to go ask permission to give his name. Obviously that's ridiculous, primarily for social reasons...out on the street we don't expect people to conceal our identities unless we ask them to.
On the internet however, we do expect privacy. In various other forums we may also expect privacy. Unless there is a really good reason why privacy is ALWAYS bad, then it is our right. The only reason privacy may be bad, is that legal authorities have to do a lot more work to verify identity. But that's just tough shit, that's how a "free society" works. Sometimes the bad guy gets away because finding him MAY hurt good guys.
It's not ridiculous. Privacy is always important and since there is no reason at all internet users must be identifiable, it's is our right to remain anonymous. I'm an american, and hold to the original belief of the "rights" of citizens: i.e. it's a right unless it is explicitly taken away, ymmv.
Following your example: I leave my DNA around, I can't help that, it flies right off. But it's just one piece of DNA in a million and lost in the noise. Now having someone else go behind me, sequence it, attach it to my social security number, publish reports of all the hereditary diseases or weakneses from it, read potential spouses the odds that I might produce a child with some defect, provide it to employers so they can evaluate me for fitness to a job... That's a pretty terrible thing, and no one else ought to be able to do that.
All that is absolutely required is that specific internet sites need to be able to verify the identity of users, with their explicit permission. Such verification must be accurate, no forgeries, but must be voluntary and between the user and the requestor. Similarly, the internet also needs "cash". No traceability, just a way of paying for something without ID. If the truth were told, internet cash would probably remove most business motivations behind ID verification.
It's new that some company actually pitched a fit over it. Consoles are not open platforms, obviously if you intend to sell into those closed markets you should be prepared to bend over and grease up. There's very little public support against such businesses (see Microsoft, The Bell's Reunited, Your Local Cable Company, MPAA/RIAA/**AA, etc.). In a better world, we'd all see why his argument is moving, but in a better world he wouldn't be making it.
I'm not sure what getting run out of business is going to do for the cause, except that I get the strong impression he's trying to improve his negotiating position by condeming Sony at a time they're (theoretically) weak. And we, the slashdot audience are expected to hop on the wagon and buy this hook, line and sinker.
There are Christian or at least judeo-christian messages in it. The author would confirm it for you, he was made fun of for it.
Unless they made the movie into a sunday evangelists day in the woods, it's just supposed to be a pleasant fairy tale about a far away land with a very wise (omnipotent) lion and some well intentioned but often foolish children (and later: foolish natives). Otherwise it's talking animals and swords/sorcery with some adventure thrown in. It's entertaining for kids, I'm not sure it'd hold an adults attention.
Except for the hints of relgious morality thrown in there, how is making money on this wrong?
Well I don't think corporations or individuals should get extra powers that the state does not have, or we end up with a society in which wealthy people can squelch unpopular views with litigation. It's pretty close to that in some ways now since it is so easy to litigate and so hard for John Q. to defend and not go broke. Nor should groups like Wikipedia (or ISPs) have to take responsibility for what individuals do with their services, those are the outlets for individual interests, they should not be in the position of policing information (or again, we get in a sticky situation of oppression by private interests, well intentioned or otherwise).
On the other hand, most would agree that individuals have to take responsibility for what they say and do. Words hurt as much as actions. If I wrote an article stating that Brian Chase was a child molester, and raped three young boys in Idaho, and it got distributed widely, it's likey this person would never be able to work or live in peace again. Clearly that's not a freedom I ought to have, as I would have taken his away, for no cause.
Probably not wanting to give $5-$10 (depending on where you live) to some suit in Hollywood who just wanted to turn on the wallet vac for a couple hours without actually putting effort into it.
I for one have given quite a few dollars, against the opinions of reviers, in hopes of finding the jewel in the rough. My reward for it has been lost time and money I won't get back. Many of us do not wish to waste any more time or money unless someone who got to see the movie for free can manage to give at least a luke warm review.
If their intention was to do an expose on the MPAA's rating system, you'd think they would have made the movie such that it could reach the widest possible audience. Instead they threw in stuff they had to know (they are filmmakers) would get them an NC-17 rating. Even if it was borderline, a reasonable person would have erred on the side of caution to ensure their message got out. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Instead, the best they can do is get it shown in art-house theaters and a film channel very few people will watch. I'm not even sure we get an independent film channel in texas that doesn't involve agriculture in one form or another. It's like a presidential candidate who only campaigns to his family.
Anyway of all the evil in the world, particularly with the MPAA, the movie rating system scores down around "mostly harmless" in my book. If a few movies don't get wide distribution because they show graphic sex, either usefully, or just because the director was horny, I'm not losing sleep. The fact that the MPAA controls a lot of money and businesses and apparently the government, is really a lot scarier. Expose that, and make sure it gets PG.
You don't always get your check, sometimes they get held up due to "delays" or "problems with submission". It's a low percentage but high enough that I don't believe it's totally accidental. i.e. No one is telling employees "lose receipts", but they may arrange processes where it's easy to do so.
You have to go out of your way to track your receipts and follow up on them after the timeout period (usually 2 months later). You'll get your money, but I'd still refuse to buy based on rebate prices. I buy based on whoever has the best price without the rebate and don't go to Best Buy/Circuit City that seem to have bad prices unless you fill in all the rebates.
Exactly, I have NEVER known a company willing to lose money on cost of goods shipped (COGS) alone. You can't ever know how much a product costs, there are so many negotiations and deals going on, plus sheer volume pricing delta's that I believe MS is probably not losing money on the box itself. I build consumer products, occasionally even "hook" products like this.
They ARE losing money on warranty costs, returned products, marketing, support, etc. That's usually where suits are willing to accept losses, especially if they feel their engineering is solid (heh, MS, heh). Since MS does not have a lot of consumer experience, my guess is they are suffering a bit more from warranty issues and returns than someone like Sony, Dell or Apple, but it's still a more manageable risk.
$126 a unit, on something that ships millions of units is one hell of an investment, even if there is an expected return on the games.
but the programming world has a serious lack of portability. Programmers refuse to attempt to write portable code, and they cite (with justification) the lack of any libraries which allow them to do so with ease. Microsoft, Apple and Unix have three very different programming APIs, and Microsoft + Apple continue to try to make sure their APIs diverge from each other. MS being the worst...they "invent" a new language all their own and encourage the use of it by mob force.
The nuts and bolts of the world are still in C/C++, and will be for the foreseeable future. C/C++ still lack any standardized support for GUIs and threads. C/C++ are still the most flexible languages (in a non-CS professor approved sort of way).(This is not a "my language is better than yours post")
For a long time we're going to care about our OS because our programs will only run on one certain one, even if we don't really care what OS we use.
Not many can afford to buy all three systems at launch, all at once. But I don't know many people with kids that don't have at least the PS2 & X-Box (or Gamecube and PS2 for the younger crowd). They bought them separately, usually not at launch when they're overpriced. "$100" really isn't that much money, it's really the games that get costly (hence rentals, and buy/sell stores). Once the NRE is paid for, buying a game for the XBox is not different than the Playstation. Within a year you'll be able to buy used 360's on eBay, or even in stores... Sure, the systems aren't "$100" now but they will be soon, where soon is sometime in the next 2-3 years, basically when all these systems are in their prime.
He's right, X-Box games have a limited range that other systems fill in, unless that changes there will not be "only one".
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is rather than confuse us with trying to show and explain a complicated 3D game on a 2D screen in 2 hours, they'll change the Battle Room to be something more familiar to us. Hopefully not rollerball...
Judging by how the summary was presented, it was submitted to troll us up into a frenzy about the evil DMCA. If, for example, it mentioned the part where the drives had 77 pirated video games, you could argue I was wrong.
It would have been newsworthy if ALL they were doing was installing a modchip and a large (empty) hard drive, and NOT pirating anything. If they were then charged under the DMCA, we could get excited about something finally being overturned for being blatantly evil.
I can't get worked up over people who were actually pirating and, worse, profiting, from piracy. Let em rot.
If it were my school district, I'd lobby to have ID removed from the curriculum. The fact is I don't live there, my kids don't attend school there, hence I really don't have any business telling them what to teach.
I do not think the federal government should be deciding what is or is not taught in school any more than the pope should. The entire purpose of having hundreds of representatives and senators is to somehow ensure all regions with clashing views about certain things, get represented in the federal government fairly, NOT to homogenize them all into a single popular belief. Why does the federal government need to be involved AT ALL in this issue? It does not seem to be a constitutional issue, or certainly not a clear one...no one is being physically, emotionally or financially hurt by the teaching of ID, nor are their rights being trampled on. It's not, strictly speaking, religion. Shouldn't the local population be the deciding faction?
The disturbing part is that a COURT ruled that such and such could not be taught in a classroom.
I'm not really sure if this is a win.
Never on a first date.
How bout's you put that on your tricorder, there's a Star Trek convention in town and I have a Deanna Troi outfit just for you!
It is a pretty physically demanding job, and while I'm sure many women out there CAN do it, I'm not sure that they'd WANT to do it, and be in shape for it. It's one thing to get up and do some extra push-ups to keep up with the men in the fire department...it's another to go throw trash in a truck. Saving lives and putting out fires is a lot more motivating than waking up at 5am to go lift 1000 30lb+ trash cans over your head.
As a geek girl myself, I'd put it a bit above half. sucks.
As a geek guy, I'd put it a bit above 95%. You only hear from the ones brave enough to come forward.
Speaking of which, what are you doing Friday night?
Sure, but life in NY before Giuliani was dangerous and unpleasant. So much so that people were leaving the city in droves. During his time and after, it was actually a nice place. You could go to 42nd street and not be mugged, propositioned, killed, vandalized or otherwise molested. While central park remains a place you shouldn't go at night, it is at least no longer a nightly source of news.
Sure, the guy acted like a dictator, but he did good things. Most people never thought NYC could be saved, it was too big and too 0wn3d. I'd say that gives him more justification for Man of the Year than getting insanely rich off selling lemon software.
Quanta also makes many of Dell's computers, and a few others.
They ARE cheap. That's about all that may be construed as good. Momma said if I can't say something nice, I shouldn't say nuttin at all.
To shut them up, we demand they support all the standards.
I took his comment as a suggested starting place, something to agree with in principle without yet nitpicking on the details. One poster brought up the valid point where a third party asks a second party about the identity of the first ("Who is that guy?"), and the second party had to go ask permission to give his name. Obviously that's ridiculous, primarily for social reasons...out on the street we don't expect people to conceal our identities unless we ask them to.
On the internet however, we do expect privacy. In various other forums we may also expect privacy. Unless there is a really good reason why privacy is ALWAYS bad, then it is our right. The only reason privacy may be bad, is that legal authorities have to do a lot more work to verify identity. But that's just tough shit, that's how a "free society" works. Sometimes the bad guy gets away because finding him MAY hurt good guys.
It's not ridiculous. Privacy is always important and since there is no reason at all internet users must be identifiable, it's is our right to remain anonymous. I'm an american, and hold to the original belief of the "rights" of citizens: i.e. it's a right unless it is explicitly taken away, ymmv.
Following your example: I leave my DNA around, I can't help that, it flies right off. But it's just one piece of DNA in a million and lost in the noise. Now having someone else go behind me, sequence it, attach it to my social security number, publish reports of all the hereditary diseases or weakneses from it, read potential spouses the odds that I might produce a child with some defect, provide it to employers so they can evaluate me for fitness to a job... That's a pretty terrible thing, and no one else ought to be able to do that.
All that is absolutely required is that specific internet sites need to be able to verify the identity of users, with their explicit permission. Such verification must be accurate, no forgeries, but must be voluntary and between the user and the requestor. Similarly, the internet also needs "cash". No traceability, just a way of paying for something without ID. If the truth were told, internet cash would probably remove most business motivations behind ID verification.
It's new that some company actually pitched a fit over it. Consoles are not open platforms, obviously if you intend to sell into those closed markets you should be prepared to bend over and grease up. There's very little public support against such businesses (see Microsoft, The Bell's Reunited, Your Local Cable Company, MPAA/RIAA/**AA, etc.). In a better world, we'd all see why his argument is moving, but in a better world he wouldn't be making it.
I'm not sure what getting run out of business is going to do for the cause, except that I get the strong impression he's trying to improve his negotiating position by condeming Sony at a time they're (theoretically) weak. And we, the slashdot audience are expected to hop on the wagon and buy this hook, line and sinker.
He's called Puddlegum the Marsh-wiggle. I think it's the 6th book, depending on how you count.
There are Christian or at least judeo-christian messages in it. The author would confirm it for you, he was made fun of for it.
Unless they made the movie into a sunday evangelists day in the woods, it's just supposed to be a pleasant fairy tale about a far away land with a very wise (omnipotent) lion and some well intentioned but often foolish children (and later: foolish natives). Otherwise it's talking animals and swords/sorcery with some adventure thrown in. It's entertaining for kids, I'm not sure it'd hold an adults attention.
Except for the hints of relgious morality thrown in there, how is making money on this wrong?
Well I don't think corporations or individuals should get extra powers that the state does not have, or we end up with a society in which wealthy people can squelch unpopular views with litigation. It's pretty close to that in some ways now since it is so easy to litigate and so hard for John Q. to defend and not go broke. Nor should groups like Wikipedia (or ISPs) have to take responsibility for what individuals do with their services, those are the outlets for individual interests, they should not be in the position of policing information (or again, we get in a sticky situation of oppression by private interests, well intentioned or otherwise). On the other hand, most would agree that individuals have to take responsibility for what they say and do. Words hurt as much as actions. If I wrote an article stating that Brian Chase was a child molester, and raped three young boys in Idaho, and it got distributed widely, it's likey this person would never be able to work or live in peace again. Clearly that's not a freedom I ought to have, as I would have taken his away, for no cause.
Probably not wanting to give $5-$10 (depending on where you live) to some suit in Hollywood who just wanted to turn on the wallet vac for a couple hours without actually putting effort into it.
I for one have given quite a few dollars, against the opinions of reviers, in hopes of finding the jewel in the rough. My reward for it has been lost time and money I won't get back. Many of us do not wish to waste any more time or money unless someone who got to see the movie for free can manage to give at least a luke warm review.
If their intention was to do an expose on the MPAA's rating system, you'd think they would have made the movie such that it could reach the widest possible audience. Instead they threw in stuff they had to know (they are filmmakers) would get them an NC-17 rating. Even if it was borderline, a reasonable person would have erred on the side of caution to ensure their message got out. I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Instead, the best they can do is get it shown in art-house theaters and a film channel very few people will watch. I'm not even sure we get an independent film channel in texas that doesn't involve agriculture in one form or another. It's like a presidential candidate who only campaigns to his family.
Anyway of all the evil in the world, particularly with the MPAA, the movie rating system scores down around "mostly harmless" in my book. If a few movies don't get wide distribution because they show graphic sex, either usefully, or just because the director was horny, I'm not losing sleep. The fact that the MPAA controls a lot of money and businesses and apparently the government, is really a lot scarier. Expose that, and make sure it gets PG.
You don't always get your check, sometimes they get held up due to "delays" or "problems with submission". It's a low percentage but high enough that I don't believe it's totally accidental. i.e. No one is telling employees "lose receipts", but they may arrange processes where it's easy to do so.
You have to go out of your way to track your receipts and follow up on them after the timeout period (usually 2 months later). You'll get your money, but I'd still refuse to buy based on rebate prices. I buy based on whoever has the best price without the rebate and don't go to Best Buy/Circuit City that seem to have bad prices unless you fill in all the rebates.
Exactly, I have NEVER known a company willing to lose money on cost of goods shipped (COGS) alone. You can't ever know how much a product costs, there are so many negotiations and deals going on, plus sheer volume pricing delta's that I believe MS is probably not losing money on the box itself. I build consumer products, occasionally even "hook" products like this.
They ARE losing money on warranty costs, returned products, marketing, support, etc. That's usually where suits are willing to accept losses, especially if they feel their engineering is solid (heh, MS, heh). Since MS does not have a lot of consumer experience, my guess is they are suffering a bit more from warranty issues and returns than someone like Sony, Dell or Apple, but it's still a more manageable risk.
$126 a unit, on something that ships millions of units is one hell of an investment, even if there is an expected return on the games.
No, on /. it's quite expected, but it is funny anyway.
but the programming world has a serious lack of portability. Programmers refuse to attempt to write portable code, and they cite (with justification) the lack of any libraries which allow them to do so with ease. Microsoft, Apple and Unix have three very different programming APIs, and Microsoft + Apple continue to try to make sure their APIs diverge from each other. MS being the worst...they "invent" a new language all their own and encourage the use of it by mob force.
The nuts and bolts of the world are still in C/C++, and will be for the foreseeable future. C/C++ still lack any standardized support for GUIs and threads. C/C++ are still the most flexible languages (in a non-CS professor approved sort of way).(This is not a "my language is better than yours post")
For a long time we're going to care about our OS because our programs will only run on one certain one, even if we don't really care what OS we use.
Not many can afford to buy all three systems at launch, all at once. But I don't know many people with kids that don't have at least the PS2 & X-Box (or Gamecube and PS2 for the younger crowd). They bought them separately, usually not at launch when they're overpriced. "$100" really isn't that much money, it's really the games that get costly (hence rentals, and buy/sell stores). Once the NRE is paid for, buying a game for the XBox is not different than the Playstation. Within a year you'll be able to buy used 360's on eBay, or even in stores... Sure, the systems aren't "$100" now but they will be soon, where soon is sometime in the next 2-3 years, basically when all these systems are in their prime.
He's right, X-Box games have a limited range that other systems fill in, unless that changes there will not be "only one".
You have a susceptance to complain.