If you arrested all the people in the USA who have violated the drug laws (predominantly recreational drugs like pot), you'd end up arresting the number of people that make up arkensaw, texas, and colerado... I wonder if Universal will find out just how many fans there are for some of their big name contracts, and I wonder if that number will surprise them. I also wonder if some artists will see this as a damaging move on their part, and request that their releases not be copy protected...
> This is proof positive that MicroSoft make quality products. So now, can we all jsut lay off of MS and all decend in hordes on Sun and IBM?
Isn't this more like proof that *nix sucks as much as MS?;)
Seirously tho, of course, the more mature techies will concede that both OS families have had their fair share of minor and major problems. I've never held either OS family up to such lofty 'uncrackable' standards, but the one thing I do have to say is that, considering MS's attitude towards its track record (ie, 'what me worry?'), it's still more frusterating when the exploit is an MS exploit rather than a Unix one.
Plus, much of the insecurity in Windows is due to the scripting and VB features that MS deemed so critical to the success of their software. This problem is an expoit, where as early email worms didn't even have to 'exploit' the box. MS's own feature set and technology caused billions of dollars in productivity loss in order to save the user from a few clicks, or incorperate 'gee wiz' functionality in their mail/www clients. That, to me, is far more damning than any accidental root exploit will ever be. Mistakes happen. Sacrificing security for brochure-ware is inexcusable and irresponsible.
Incidentally, I don't think he understands the point of moderation. HE may think he's posting intelligent things, but he's missing the point of being modded down; others clearly do not agree his self-assesment, which is pretty much the whole damn point of moderation.
I've been at 50 for the last two years, with arond 200 posts, and if I've figured out one thing, its that karma is not a right on a per post basis. It is the case, in many ways, that one or two bitter or whiny posts will ruin your rep and moderators will 'remember' you on subsequent posts, making it more difficult to get modded up. It's called 'just deserts', but I guess A_Non_Moose hasn't figured that out yet, or he'd have grinned and beared (or moosed, groan) it by now. Anyhow, don't stop stickin' up for the system - like anything else, it ain't perfect, but I'll take it over having to manage my own signal to noise ratio any day!
Talking about various slashdot issues with friends and family has made me realize that ensuring that (new) technologies are not detramental our social values, rights and freedoms is a very difficult cause due to the lack of knowledge by the casual user (ie, end user).
I'm curious about what you think are effective ways of ensuring that our technologies continue to uphold our basic and civil rights when the populations you are attempting to protect will never be well versed in the details of both the technologies and the cause? Or, more generically, how do you amass popular support for issues that are too complex for the popular vote to comprehend?
Everytime MS goes away to re-engineer the deal, they make the noose a little bit tighter. Am I the only person who finds the idea that a company being punished for anti-competative business practices and 'proposing' settlement alternatives somewhat ironic, idiotic, and likely suicide for those seeking a settlement in the long run? We're just giving them more and more time to turn this ship more and more in their direction.
I'm sure MS dollars exchanges very favourably for top notch negotiators who's sole jobs are to make sure MS comes out of this ahead of where they were before this all started.
> On the whole, people want to work and innovate because they want $
I'm not sure where along the way we decided that people want to innovate. Some people do, sure. Inventors have existed in every culture, every age, to varying degrees. However, I'm of the opinion that this sweeping assumption, coupled with current copyright and patent laws, causes our countries to invent useless technologies, or at least technologies which cause as many short term problems as those they purpot to solve, while ensuring that you cannot make a decent living independant of the IP-owning corperate body, contributing domain knowldge, slight improvements, or supporting it.
Obviously, it's a vast oversimplification, but my point is that there is no money, currently, in smart technophiles going into support. I feel that if enough importance was placed on it, in terms of salary, working environment, and responsibility and accountibility, I'd wager that people wouldn't feel half as disillusioned by technology than they feel today; and would likely be in a better position to see where/how they could contribute to the economy.
This is one of the things, I think, that is attractive to OS developers. Other people/can/ choose to support it, in a 3rd party manner, if they want; and given a sufficient level of knowedge, and a wider enough user base, they even make a living from it, resulting in an increased sense of return on investment by the owner/user of said software, thus ensuring that they will spend on support in the future. This is as opposed to spending on the 'invention', only to discover that they don't know how to use it, and no one can help them. The chance of them repeat spending more on that branch of technology must be lower than in the successful support scenario. I suppose that the only thing that scares the innovation pundits is that this money goes back to the people supporting the status quo rather than the companies furiously trying to file their latest patent, even tho both paths contribute to the overall health of the economy. And here's where the ugly truth is.. I think countries see the innovation in their economies not meant to keep the domestic economy strong, but rather to stay ahead of/other/ economies. I think this is the true point of globalism as it relates to innovation and IP. As nations, we havn't gotten over our geocentric biases yet (I have a hard time picturing an IBM exec feeling good about bringing technologies to a foreign land, as opposed to feeling good about opening up yet another market to IBM), so how on earth is globalism meant to benifit everybody if it's only being used as a means of protecting IP and ensuring that one country must start contributing to anothers economy until the patent expires (and at the rate we're going, it seems like patents will never expire in the not-so-distant future).
> at least our system keeps them in check to some level
I'd agree with this if you're referring to keeping them in check on the soil of the country it is based in. However, look no furthur than Nike, Starbucks, The Gap, etc. They're very existance has spelled the death of numerous economies, industries, markets, children, etc in other markets where there is no one to defend them. All because those cultures and economies were based not on innovation, but the maintenance of quality of life (for which there is far less a dependance on the growth of wealth). I agree that Capitalism has been the best system for those who live in it, but don't forget for all the 'freedom flag' waving the US does, it's very obvious that they are in no hurry to bring regulated democratic capitalism to countries which are suffering due to its existance unless they represent a potential future economic or political (read: communism, dictatorship) threat, sometimes even going so far as to silently lobby for governments (check out the NED) that do little but provide social and economic laws that permit US based companies to make large profits. From slaves to sweat shops abroad, capitalism has always depended on populations, cultures, and people who are not granted the same checks and balances as those who live in it's homeland.
Whew.. in other words.. no economic system is an island, and I believe the blind belief of innovation as our salvation is responsible for that. There seems to be no place in our world for cultures who simply wish to live happily without innovating, and, unfrotunately, those countries are being punished for it daily due to their lack of desire to grow economically on the world stage. I believe many of the values OS echews is a desire to grow and innovate at a natural level, as people see fit to contribute; not as a means of 'staying ahead of the competition', which, of course, is primarily why the vast majority of software being sold is closed.
Its still happening. They demoed this functionality recently with a new Kirby game, although I dont remember if the game is going to make it to the production state. Basically, you plug the GBA into a controller port for the gamecube, and if the game is GBA-aware, the developers can choose to do whatever they want with it. One VERY cool thing is that the Kirby demo included an empty 'gamepak' in the GBA that was en empty cartridge with a Tilt-Sensor in it. So you could use the GBA as a controller which could tell the Cube what angle it was being held at. Imagine the possibilities.
But to answer your original question, the functionality is there; the only question is, can Game Cube developers find the 'killer app' for this configuration? I think the most useful implementation will be to share saved game data between GBA and Gamecube versions of the same game, but thats my limited imagination talking (and I dont know what typical savegame sizes are on GBA titles.) The football example you provided was good.. also consider that you could have one friend control the gun of a ship and use the GBA screen as a radar, and you control the flying of that ship. I don't know, there are lost of possible cool ways to use the GBA link, but we'll have to see if anyone stumbles across the aforementionned 'killer app'. Then again, who knows, maybe it'll just be Pokeman again.:)
Check cube.ign.com and gamespot.com, and do searches for "Game Boy Advance Link Game Cube" or something similar.
Read here about what Xbox Only means. Or wait, I'll spoil it for you:
"Only on Xbox means not on any other console. It does not mean never coming to Mac or PC. Halo will be coming to Mac and PC." He continued, "We still plan to do a Mac and PC version of Halo, but there are a lot of questions that must be answered before we can make the Mac/PC versions happen."
The Xbox looks like it can crunch any other console, but you know, so many of the developers they grabbed will be porting to the PC. I wonder if they havn't underestimated the overlap of PC gamers and potential Xbox owner demographics.
I got my Gamecube 3 days ago, and holy crap, it's amazing. The Xbox might look good, but I'll take a the Cube anyday. Better controllers, best 1st party games (Halo might be coming out for PC, isn't that right?), seriously WIKED ASS form factor.. and no harddrive (thank god). It's a console. The Xbox is a PC, to the extent the MS is trying VERY hard to keep developers from wanting to port their MS-sponsered Xbox titles back to the PC (where many of them probably started, in terms of development). I have a PC.:)
I think the one arena Nintendo may have screwed up is with going with no onboard ethernet card. They are dirt cheap, why didn't they just throw one on?
> of us who claim to be graphic designers yet cannot stomach
Your post is like asking a mechanic not to work on Lada's, because they are bad cars. You miss the point. People pay this guy to do flash; he doesn't write flash because he thinks its god's gift to UI. He's a graphic designer. Your points would be far more useful if aimed at clients who are looking for graphic design projects to be completed.
On top of this, there is no question that as an interface for a website flash sucks. However, as nonfunctional/nonmenucontaining/nonnavigational eyecandy, with the guiding hand of a seasoned graphic designer and a little ui sense, it can turn a page from bland to sweet in under 10 seconds. Everything has a place and purpose - the real talent is not to paint things in black and white, but rather to understand the limitations of a technology in order to use it effectively. There's no question that flash is over used, but to suggest that there is never a use for it is a vast over simplification of a very complex science.
Hey wow, an actual well thought out rebuke, with details, and facts! Given the problems you list, obviously incar breathalizers are not mature enough to justify deployment. Thanks for the reply, it was one of the few that wasn't chaulk full of rhetoric. My opinions on breathalizers have changed....
ahhhhhh.. howcome I'm on the end of a lecture about technology not solving problems. DUH! Metal detectors dont (as we learned) solve problems. They do, however, prevent some.:) Its up to the society to determine at what level a technology can infringe upon the liberty of it's citizens, thats all. I was only saying that by and large, we accept metal detectors. On the other hand, we don't accept nation ID cards. Thats cool! This is what we've decided as a society is acceptable. What I don't understand is why a breathalizer on all cars wouldn't be acceptable provided THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THAT SOCIETY asked for them.
I'm not saying the government should be free to impose it; if anything, the fact that they WOULD have to madate and force it today proves that as a society we still want to be able to bend the rules at will based on our senses of responsibility. But that may not be the case in the future... and thats all I have to say about that!
BTW, I'm usually the one screaming my head off about not relying on a technology or holding the percieved inferiority or inappropriateness of a given technology accountable for problems and events. About the only thing you can hold all technology for is that they/do/ alter social patterns, always and irrevocably.
> Do you honestly believe that? Could it be that the majority of them are in the position they are in because of their own behavior?
Oh sure. Sons and daughters of homeless people often end up in well paying jobs, just like the kids of rich people often end up living on the street. Sure, I'm prepared to accept that a percentage of them are there because they are lazy and ignorant, and whatever self-affirming low-life qualities you want to hear to feel better about your achievements. Yes, I believe they exist, in large numbers. But not the majority. This is likely where we diverge.
I think poor communities stay poor because they never have money and thus can't learn how to save it or use it responsibily. Conversly, rich people stay rich because they save it, and are wise enough to make sure they always have some left to maintain their position in society. I think many people are poor because they are black, or female, or crippled, or what have you. I think many people are rich because they are white, or male, or both. You really have to be wearing the blinders to contest that gender/race/class barriers still don't predominate the majority of industries/communities/societies. Do you really think all black rappers are gangsters? Or would you rather accept the reality that they are ASKED to maintain that role and stereotype because historically, it sells. Therefore, the only way these communities can rise above the dominant classes/races/genders is to gain access to a medium and audience that rivals the current ruling class/race/gender at prices and resources available to anyone from any walk of life.
> Can I ask what sort of political/economic system you think will bring about the "utopian Star Trek Federation-esque perfect world"?
None, I don't believe in it. But a great many of/.-izens do, unfrotuantetly, I think. Just like a conservatives unwillingness to accept that they could end up in any position or situation in the future is their archillies heel, so are the liberals weakened by their blind belief in this 'utopian' society.
- no metal detectors at airports
- no police at large events
- etc, etc
You already, unknowingly, accept many upon many of the above types of measures. They don't make you feel like anyone thinks you are a criminal, because you're USED to them. You know in your head that you have to go through the metal detector, not because they think you're a criminal, but because its a sacrifice you're willing to make to catch the real criminals.
Don't be a moron. You're essentially saying, whether you like it or not, you won't give up the liberty of not having a breathalizer in your car to catch the true criminals?
I'm not even sure what liberty is involved here.. the freedom to not feel like a habitual drunk driver everytime you get in your car? what freedom are you giving up? your freedom to drink and drive? do you have a freedom to drink and drive?
C'mon, think! Think! And stop grasping at stereotypes, buddy! I'm my own man, and think differently than each person here. There are other Big Bother-esque every freedoms I would fight to the death to preserve (such as smoking pot, watch
How the hell is it Big Brother if I WANT it, and will gladly accept it if over 50% of the other people in my country WANT it? Don't confusing WANTING it with tolerating being told to accept it if I disagree with it.
And if so, where does that leave you? Against democracy?
"The upgraded connection between SURFnet, the advanced research and higher education network in the Netherlands, and Abilene, an Internet2® backbone network serving over 200 universities and research centers in the United States, will enable applications such as TV-quality videoconferencing, MPEG2 video streaming, data mining and remote collaboration between researchers, teachers and students in the US and the Netherlands. "
Should be:
"The upgraded connection between SURFnet, the advanced research and higher education network in the Netherlands, and Abilene, an Internet2® backbone network serving over 200 universities and research centers in the United States, will enable applications such as TV-quality Live-Sex videoconferencing, MPEG2 video streaming of DVD porn, pleasure mining and remote collaboration (also known as Live Sex with force feedback devices, or LS-FFD) between researchers, teachers and *especially* students in the US and the Netherlands. Sometimes between teachers and students but only where extreme secrecy and power-abuse is employed."
You can do all of the activities you described in a moderate and responsible way. You cannot drive a car when you are HAMMERED in a responsible way, or for any legimate reason.
You're right tho. Actually, we shouldn't even have licences. We should just say: "If you want to drive a car, just make sure you're responsible about it!"
Next time, try explaining your argument, and pondering the context of your examples a little more before jumping into a limp rhetoric rage.
I dont advocate that level of control for all the reasons above: there are lots of valid reasons why you have to make traffic infractions.
Hell, I failed my first drivers license test because I didn't go over the speed limit to merge on the highway safely.
However, I challenge anyone to come up with a list of 10 legitamite reasons for drunk driving.
Also note that the breathalizer could be set at a most-serious-infraction level; just to stop the hammered people. Thus, you would still keep the responsibility and control in the hands of people who are in the 'grey area', if you want to keep the rights zealots at bay. (Of which I am one of them.)
um, when the law states that you're not allowed to drink and drive, how is providing a mechnism to prevent it taking away from a freedom? you are free to talk, think, say (for the most part) whatever you like. Information is free, which is why MS shouldn't be able to control the info on your computer. You can't kill anyone with it, and MS certainly isn't a body who has an interest in monitoring or controlling your data for the good of the population. (there, I humoured you)
Are the metal scanners at airports taking away your freedom? Duh, you don't have to take a plane, just like you don't have to own or use a car.
You make us liberals look bad by confusing your right to communicate and think freely with your lack of right to/act/ freely. A society must always set boundries on behavior, as it is truely the only means by which we can inflict pain (and/or help another person) However, communicating ideas does not infringe on the physical health of your fellow citizens; each person must interpret your ideas and/act/ in reaction to it in a way that is inline with the laws and regulations of the society you participate in. It's called the 'good will' of the community; you can think or say anything you want, but you have a social contract to participate in society, abide by its laws, and, if supported by its citizens, submit to various types of physical restrictions designed to prevent casual attempts to infract serious offences.
Thus, having a breathalizer ignition is not giving up freedom if the majority of people in the society (if its a democracy) support it.
sure, if you WANT to do something, you can. you always can
My theory is that a significant portion of drunk drivers only feel comfortable driving dunk when they are.. guess what.. drunk. So I would say, sure, underground garages might spring up, but if we found out that the vast majority of cases were people who get in their cars while they are drunk, but wouldn't feel morally comfy with getting such after-market illegal alterations done, then its very much worth it.
as always, it comes down to the numbers, but the drunk drivers I know wouldn't feel comfortable with using such services. basically, they just 'assume' when they are drunk that they arn't, hop in their car, and go... because they can, and we still havn't reached the point where its easy to amass social support for not getting in a car after having one or two extra beers in that grey area that you can't 'feel', but numerically contributes to drunk driving.
well, I, for one, don't mind losing that kind of 'freedom and control' if it helps the deployment of ignition technologies to keep non-safe drivers out of cars: breathalizer, driver licence check, etc
to me, it is absolutely criminal that cars are not mandated to have at least some level of drunkdriving prevention. dunno if that would get in the way of alternative security systems, but if it does.. well, lets just say that the average human is a little too attached to their car in the first place:)
Slashdot Mirror
If you arrested all the people in the USA who have violated the drug laws (predominantly recreational drugs like pot), you'd end up arresting the number of people that make up arkensaw, texas, and colerado ... I wonder if Universal will find out just how many fans there are for some of their big name contracts, and I wonder if that number will surprise them. I also wonder if some artists will see this as a damaging move on their part, and request that their releases not be copy protected ...
> Okay, so I misspelled "gundam." Is it really necessary to start casting aspersions on my hygiene?
:) I so hope you are the Attila from deviantart.com ...
Ahhh, attila, too funny!
> This is proof positive that MicroSoft make quality products. So now, can we all jsut lay off of MS and all decend in hordes on Sun and IBM?
;)
Isn't this more like proof that *nix sucks as much as MS?
Seirously tho, of course, the more mature techies will concede that both OS families have had their fair share of minor and major problems. I've never held either OS family up to such lofty 'uncrackable' standards, but the one thing I do have to say is that, considering MS's attitude towards its track record (ie, 'what me worry?'), it's still more frusterating when the exploit is an MS exploit rather than a Unix one.
Plus, much of the insecurity in Windows is due to the scripting and VB features that MS deemed so critical to the success of their software. This problem is an expoit, where as early email worms didn't even have to 'exploit' the box. MS's own feature set and technology caused billions of dollars in productivity loss in order to save the user from a few clicks, or incorperate 'gee wiz' functionality in their mail/www clients. That, to me, is far more damning than any accidental root exploit will ever be. Mistakes happen. Sacrificing security for brochure-ware is inexcusable and irresponsible.
Amen Micheal.
Incidentally, I don't think he understands the point of moderation. HE may think he's posting intelligent things, but he's missing the point of being modded down; others clearly do not agree his self-assesment, which is pretty much the whole damn point of moderation.
I've been at 50 for the last two years, with arond 200 posts, and if I've figured out one thing, its that karma is not a right on a per post basis. It is the case, in many ways, that one or two bitter or whiny posts will ruin your rep and moderators will 'remember' you on subsequent posts, making it more difficult to get modded up. It's called 'just deserts', but I guess A_Non_Moose hasn't figured that out yet, or he'd have grinned and beared (or moosed, groan) it by now. Anyhow, don't stop stickin' up for the system - like anything else, it ain't perfect, but I'll take it over having to manage my own signal to noise ratio any day!
Well, this might be obvious, but if he would, why on earth would he tell you?
Talking about various slashdot issues with friends and family has made me realize that ensuring that (new) technologies are not detramental our social values, rights and freedoms is a very difficult cause due to the lack of knowledge by the casual user (ie, end user).
I'm curious about what you think are effective ways of ensuring that our technologies continue to uphold our basic and civil rights when the populations you are attempting to protect will never be well versed in the details of both the technologies and the cause? Or, more generically, how do you amass popular support for issues that are too complex for the popular vote to comprehend?
Everytime MS goes away to re-engineer the deal, they make the noose a little bit tighter. Am I the only person who finds the idea that a company being punished for anti-competative business practices and 'proposing' settlement alternatives somewhat ironic, idiotic, and likely suicide for those seeking a settlement in the long run? We're just giving them more and more time to turn this ship more and more in their direction.
I'm sure MS dollars exchanges very favourably for top notch negotiators who's sole jobs are to make sure MS comes out of this ahead of where they were before this all started.
> On the whole, people want to work and innovate because they want $
/can/ choose to support it, in a 3rd party manner, if they want; and given a sufficient level of knowedge, and a wider enough user base, they even make a living from it, resulting in an increased sense of return on investment by the owner/user of said software, thus ensuring that they will spend on support in the future. This is as opposed to spending on the 'invention', only to discover that they don't know how to use it, and no one can help them. The chance of them repeat spending more on that branch of technology must be lower than in the successful support scenario. I suppose that the only thing that scares the innovation pundits is that this money goes back to the people supporting the status quo rather than the companies furiously trying to file their latest patent, even tho both paths contribute to the overall health of the economy. And here's where the ugly truth is .. I think countries see the innovation in their economies not meant to keep the domestic economy strong, but rather to stay ahead of /other/ economies. I think this is the true point of globalism as it relates to innovation and IP. As nations, we havn't gotten over our geocentric biases yet (I have a hard time picturing an IBM exec feeling good about bringing technologies to a foreign land, as opposed to feeling good about opening up yet another market to IBM), so how on earth is globalism meant to benifit everybody if it's only being used as a means of protecting IP and ensuring that one country must start contributing to anothers economy until the patent expires (and at the rate we're going, it seems like patents will never expire in the not-so-distant future).
.. in other words .. no economic system is an island, and I believe the blind belief of innovation as our salvation is responsible for that. There seems to be no place in our world for cultures who simply wish to live happily without innovating, and, unfrotunately, those countries are being punished for it daily due to their lack of desire to grow economically on the world stage. I believe many of the values OS echews is a desire to grow and innovate at a natural level, as people see fit to contribute; not as a means of 'staying ahead of the competition', which, of course, is primarily why the vast majority of software being sold is closed.
I'm not sure where along the way we decided that people want to innovate. Some people do, sure. Inventors have existed in every culture, every age, to varying degrees. However, I'm of the opinion that this sweeping assumption, coupled with current copyright and patent laws, causes our countries to invent useless technologies, or at least technologies which cause as many short term problems as those they purpot to solve, while ensuring that you cannot make a decent living independant of the IP-owning corperate body, contributing domain knowldge, slight improvements, or supporting it.
Obviously, it's a vast oversimplification, but my point is that there is no money, currently, in smart technophiles going into support. I feel that if enough importance was placed on it, in terms of salary, working environment, and responsibility and accountibility, I'd wager that people wouldn't feel half as disillusioned by technology than they feel today; and would likely be in a better position to see where/how they could contribute to the economy.
This is one of the things, I think, that is attractive to OS developers. Other people
> at least our system keeps them in check to some level
I'd agree with this if you're referring to keeping them in check on the soil of the country it is based in. However, look no furthur than Nike, Starbucks, The Gap, etc. They're very existance has spelled the death of numerous economies, industries, markets, children, etc in other markets where there is no one to defend them. All because those cultures and economies were based not on innovation, but the maintenance of quality of life (for which there is far less a dependance on the growth of wealth). I agree that Capitalism has been the best system for those who live in it, but don't forget for all the 'freedom flag' waving the US does, it's very obvious that they are in no hurry to bring regulated democratic capitalism to countries which are suffering due to its existance unless they represent a potential future economic or political (read: communism, dictatorship) threat, sometimes even going so far as to silently lobby for governments (check out the NED) that do little but provide social and economic laws that permit US based companies to make large profits. From slaves to sweat shops abroad, capitalism has always depended on populations, cultures, and people who are not granted the same checks and balances as those who live in it's homeland.
Whew
Man, someone out there sure feels threatened .. hard to believe someone is so worried as to spend the time pasting this form-post in /. threads.
...
One wonders what this guys trying to defend. I wish this guy who let us know for whom he works, and what he does
Its still happening. They demoed this functionality recently with a new Kirby game, although I dont remember if the game is going to make it to the production state. Basically, you plug the GBA into a controller port for the gamecube, and if the game is GBA-aware, the developers can choose to do whatever they want with it. One VERY cool thing is that the Kirby demo included an empty 'gamepak' in the GBA that was en empty cartridge with a Tilt-Sensor in it. So you could use the GBA as a controller which could tell the Cube what angle it was being held at. Imagine the possibilities.
.. also consider that you could have one friend control the gun of a ship and use the GBA screen as a radar, and you control the flying of that ship. I don't know, there are lost of possible cool ways to use the GBA link, but we'll have to see if anyone stumbles across the aforementionned 'killer app'. Then again, who knows, maybe it'll just be Pokeman again. :)
But to answer your original question, the functionality is there; the only question is, can Game Cube developers find the 'killer app' for this configuration? I think the most useful implementation will be to share saved game data between GBA and Gamecube versions of the same game, but thats my limited imagination talking (and I dont know what typical savegame sizes are on GBA titles.) The football example you provided was good
Check cube.ign.com and gamespot.com, and do searches for "Game Boy Advance Link Game Cube" or something similar.
Read here about what Xbox Only means. Or wait, I'll spoil it for you:
...
"Only on Xbox means not on any other console. It does not mean never coming to Mac or PC. Halo will be coming to Mac and PC." He continued, "We still plan to do a Mac and PC version of Halo, but there are a lot of questions that must be answered before we can make the Mac/PC versions happen."
Hehe. Yes, it's coming to the PC
The Xbox looks like it can crunch any other console, but you know, so many of the developers they grabbed will be porting to the PC. I wonder if they havn't underestimated the overlap of PC gamers and potential Xbox owner demographics.
.. and no harddrive (thank god). It's a console. The Xbox is a PC, to the extent the MS is trying VERY hard to keep developers from wanting to port their MS-sponsered Xbox titles back to the PC (where many of them probably started, in terms of development). I have a PC. :)
I got my Gamecube 3 days ago, and holy crap, it's amazing. The Xbox might look good, but I'll take a the Cube anyday. Better controllers, best 1st party games (Halo might be coming out for PC, isn't that right?), seriously WIKED ASS form factor
I think the one arena Nintendo may have screwed up is with going with no onboard ethernet card. They are dirt cheap, why didn't they just throw one on?
> of us who claim to be graphic designers yet cannot stomach
Your post is like asking a mechanic not to work on Lada's, because they are bad cars. You miss the point. People pay this guy to do flash; he doesn't write flash because he thinks its god's gift to UI. He's a graphic designer. Your points would be far more useful if aimed at clients who are looking for graphic design projects to be completed.
On top of this, there is no question that as an interface for a website flash sucks. However, as nonfunctional/nonmenucontaining/nonnavigational eyecandy, with the guiding hand of a seasoned graphic designer and a little ui sense, it can turn a page from bland to sweet in under 10 seconds. Everything has a place and purpose - the real talent is not to paint things in black and white, but rather to understand the limitations of a technology in order to use it effectively. There's no question that flash is over used, but to suggest that there is never a use for it is a vast over simplification of a very complex science.
Hey wow, an actual well thought out rebuke, with details, and facts! Given the problems you list, obviously incar breathalizers are not mature enough to justify deployment. Thanks for the reply, it was one of the few that wasn't chaulk full of rhetoric. My opinions on breathalizers have changed ....
ahhhhhh .. howcome I'm on the end of a lecture about technology not solving problems. DUH! Metal detectors dont (as we learned) solve problems. They do, however, prevent some. :) Its up to the society to determine at what level a technology can infringe upon the liberty of it's citizens, thats all. I was only saying that by and large, we accept metal detectors. On the other hand, we don't accept nation ID cards. Thats cool! This is what we've decided as a society is acceptable. What I don't understand is why a breathalizer on all cars wouldn't be acceptable provided THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THAT SOCIETY asked for them.
... and thats all I have to say about that!
/do/ alter social patterns, always and irrevocably.
I'm not saying the government should be free to impose it; if anything, the fact that they WOULD have to madate and force it today proves that as a society we still want to be able to bend the rules at will based on our senses of responsibility. But that may not be the case in the future
BTW, I'm usually the one screaming my head off about not relying on a technology or holding the percieved inferiority or inappropriateness of a given technology accountable for problems and events. About the only thing you can hold all technology for is that they
> Do you honestly believe that? Could it be that the majority of them are in the position they are in because of their own behavior?
/.-izens do, unfrotuantetly, I think. Just like a conservatives unwillingness to accept that they could end up in any position or situation in the future is their archillies heel, so are the liberals weakened by their blind belief in this 'utopian' society.
Oh sure. Sons and daughters of homeless people often end up in well paying jobs, just like the kids of rich people often end up living on the street. Sure, I'm prepared to accept that a percentage of them are there because they are lazy and ignorant, and whatever self-affirming low-life qualities you want to hear to feel better about your achievements. Yes, I believe they exist, in large numbers. But not the majority. This is likely where we diverge.
I think poor communities stay poor because they never have money and thus can't learn how to save it or use it responsibily. Conversly, rich people stay rich because they save it, and are wise enough to make sure they always have some left to maintain their position in society. I think many people are poor because they are black, or female, or crippled, or what have you. I think many people are rich because they are white, or male, or both. You really have to be wearing the blinders to contest that gender/race/class barriers still don't predominate the majority of industries/communities/societies. Do you really think all black rappers are gangsters? Or would you rather accept the reality that they are ASKED to maintain that role and stereotype because historically, it sells. Therefore, the only way these communities can rise above the dominant classes/races/genders is to gain access to a medium and audience that rivals the current ruling class/race/gender at prices and resources available to anyone from any walk of life.
> Can I ask what sort of political/economic system you think will bring about the "utopian Star Trek Federation-esque perfect world"?
None, I don't believe in it. But a great many of
Sigh.
.. the freedom to not feel like a habitual drunk driver everytime you get in your car? what freedom are you giving up? your freedom to drink and drive? do you have a freedom to drink and drive?
So you agree with:
- no metal detectors at airports
- no police at large events
- etc, etc
You already, unknowingly, accept many upon many of the above types of measures. They don't make you feel like anyone thinks you are a criminal, because you're USED to them. You know in your head that you have to go through the metal detector, not because they think you're a criminal, but because its a sacrifice you're willing to make to catch the real criminals.
Don't be a moron. You're essentially saying, whether you like it or not, you won't give up the liberty of not having a breathalizer in your car to catch the true criminals?
I'm not even sure what liberty is involved here
I'd agree if drunk drivers only hit other drunk drivers. :)
C'mon, think! Think! And stop grasping at stereotypes, buddy! I'm my own man, and think differently than each person here. There are other Big Bother-esque every freedoms I would fight to the death to preserve (such as smoking pot, watch
How the hell is it Big Brother if I WANT it, and will gladly accept it if over 50% of the other people in my country WANT it? Don't confusing WANTING it with tolerating being told to accept it if I disagree with it.
And if so, where does that leave you? Against democracy?
He translated for us:
"The upgraded connection between SURFnet, the advanced research and higher education network in the Netherlands, and Abilene, an Internet2® backbone network serving over 200 universities and research centers in the United States, will enable applications such as TV-quality videoconferencing, MPEG2 video streaming, data mining and remote collaboration between researchers, teachers and students in the US and the Netherlands. "
Should be:
"The upgraded connection between SURFnet, the advanced research and higher education network in the Netherlands, and Abilene, an Internet2® backbone network serving over 200 universities and research centers in the United States, will enable applications such as TV-quality Live-Sex videoconferencing, MPEG2 video streaming of DVD porn, pleasure mining and remote collaboration (also known as Live Sex with force feedback devices, or LS-FFD) between researchers, teachers and *especially* students in the US and the Netherlands. Sometimes between teachers and students but only where extreme secrecy and power-abuse is employed."
Ah, what lovely unthought out rhetoric!
You can do all of the activities you described in a moderate and responsible way. You cannot drive a car when you are HAMMERED in a responsible way, or for any legimate reason.
You're right tho. Actually, we shouldn't even have licences. We should just say: "If you want to drive a car, just make sure you're responsible about it!"
Next time, try explaining your argument, and pondering the context of your examples a little more before jumping into a limp rhetoric rage.
I dont advocate that level of control for all the reasons above: there are lots of valid reasons why you have to make traffic infractions.
Hell, I failed my first drivers license test because I didn't go over the speed limit to merge on the highway safely.
However, I challenge anyone to come up with a list of 10 legitamite reasons for drunk driving.
Also note that the breathalizer could be set at a most-serious-infraction level; just to stop the hammered people. Thus, you would still keep the responsibility and control in the hands of people who are in the 'grey area', if you want to keep the rights zealots at bay. (Of which I am one of them.)
um, when the law states that you're not allowed to drink and drive, how is providing a mechnism to prevent it taking away from a freedom? you are free to talk, think, say (for the most part) whatever you like. Information is free, which is why MS shouldn't be able to control the info on your computer. You can't kill anyone with it, and MS certainly isn't a body who has an interest in monitoring or controlling your data for the good of the population. (there, I humoured you)
/act/ freely. A society must always set boundries on behavior, as it is truely the only means by which we can inflict pain (and/or help another person) However, communicating ideas does not infringe on the physical health of your fellow citizens; each person must interpret your ideas and /act/ in reaction to it in a way that is inline with the laws and regulations of the society you participate in. It's called the 'good will' of the community; you can think or say anything you want, but you have a social contract to participate in society, abide by its laws, and, if supported by its citizens, submit to various types of physical restrictions designed to prevent casual attempts to infract serious offences.
Are the metal scanners at airports taking away your freedom? Duh, you don't have to take a plane, just like you don't have to own or use a car.
You make us liberals look bad by confusing your right to communicate and think freely with your lack of right to
Thus, having a breathalizer ignition is not giving up freedom if the majority of people in the society (if its a democracy) support it.
sure, if you WANT to do something, you can. you always can
.. guess what .. drunk. So I would say, sure, underground garages might spring up, but if we found out that the vast majority of cases were people who get in their cars while they are drunk, but wouldn't feel morally comfy with getting such after-market illegal alterations done, then its very much worth it.
... because they can, and we still havn't reached the point where its easy to amass social support for not getting in a car after having one or two extra beers in that grey area that you can't 'feel', but numerically contributes to drunk driving.
My theory is that a significant portion of drunk drivers only feel comfortable driving dunk when they are
as always, it comes down to the numbers, but the drunk drivers I know wouldn't feel comfortable with using such services. basically, they just 'assume' when they are drunk that they arn't, hop in their car, and go
well, I, for one, don't mind losing that kind of 'freedom and control' if it helps the deployment of ignition technologies to keep non-safe drivers out of cars: breathalizer, driver licence check, etc
.. well, lets just say that the average human is a little too attached to their car in the first place :)
to me, it is absolutely criminal that cars are not mandated to have at least some level of drunkdriving prevention. dunno if that would get in the way of alternative security systems, but if it does