I suspect the fact that the USSR knew that, for every missile they launched at the US, they'd have one launched their way was a bigger missile defense than any missile defense system. There's enough time between launch and impact that both sides knew that sending anything skyward would spark a retaliation that would end up crippling both sides. (This is why Russia in Cuba was so scary - the defense of time would have been mostly eliminated.)
Why did I waste 30 seconds of my life watching that SNL skit? With the exception of Tina Fey's recent Sarah Palin skits, SNL hasn't been funny for well over a decade and that skit was a prime example of it...
Translation: PLEASE COME BACK! We know millions of you tried our game when we launched but then Wrath of the Lich King came out and you all went back to WoW and dropped us but we'd REALLY like it if you came back. Please. Pretty please.
Ok, smartass comment out of the way, I feel bad for the Mythic crew. They had the best chance to take a substantial bite out of WoW's rather massive pie. But, in the end, they're playing in the same fantasy-genre sandbox and they just cannot compete with WoW. Yes, Warhammer may do some (or even many) things better than WoW but WoW also does many things better than Warhammer. More importantly, 11.5 million people play WoW. That's a MASSIVE player base and, given that the type of game is a massively multiplayer online game, that "massive" part is kind of important.
In my opinion, it will take a long time before another fantasy MMO comes out that has a similar real chance to take a substantial chunk of the market from WoW. If Warhammer couldn't do it, with all it's legacy behind it, it will require something truly spectacular to do it. Blizzard will need to screw things up at the same time that another company does a lot of things REALLY well with a hot IP (kinda like what WoW did to Everquest...). Warhammer had it's chance but missed the target. It'll be a while before another game has a shot. In my opinion.
"When will these companies realize who their customers are? It is the subscriber. "
I hate to break it to you but you're wrong. You are not the customer at all.
You are the commodity.
Process that for a bit and you'll realize who their customers really are... (Not trying to be a smart ass but, once I realized I was not a customer but was a commodity that happened to give them money I suddenly saw their actions as making a great deal more sense. Annoying and frustrating, to say the least, but it makes a great deal more sense now...)
When an ISP gets into the business of content delivery, they're devotion to being the best ISP possible goes out the window. And, unless I'm mistaken, Comcast and AT&T both have their own media delivery services (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) so I'm not the least bit surprised that they want to work with the RIAA in this.
I miss the days when our ISPs were internet service providers...
"I really doubt that the US Army is going to try and punish an innocent New Zealander for trying to do the right thing."
Unfortunately, "doing the right thing" does not protect one from bureaucrats. When someone in a suit wants someone punished, they will find a target, even if it happens to be the person who did "the right thing." My favourite example of this was a woman who worked for a mid-sized company as an accountant. She noticed something questionable on the books and reported it to her boss. Her boss told her to ignore it and proceed. She knew that her boss was dodging the IRS and, not wanting to be a party to tax evasion, she reported the company to the IRS and quit. The IRS began an investigation and found, sure enough, the company was illegally avoiding paying taxes. The company, of course, used every method to dodge the IRS. The IRS, having lost their obvious target, decided to use a different tactic and elected to go after the accountant who was working for the company at the time the questionable events took place.
The woman who reported the situation to them.
The IRS ceased her home and garnished her wages (from her new job) to pay off the outstanding taxes. Doing the right thing resulted in this woman being screwed, to say the least.
Yes, this is an extreme example and it's also an example of the old IRS (they've apparently had their power to abuse people reduced since then - this story took place ten or 15 years ago, iirc). But, it is still an example of someone doing the right thing yet still being turned into a target so that someone in a suit can punish _someone_.
One step in the right direction to a solution it to not allow "Unknown Number" calls any more. Yes, I know people can spoof their number (that would be the obvious step #2...) but, preventing people from hiding their numbers would go a long ways towards reducing the number of unwanted calls ("I don't recognize this number - screw it, voicemail can take it if it's important"). The fact that people can still hide their number is simply mind-boggling to me. If _you_ are calling _me_ (and thus invading my privacy) then you should have no expectation of privacy in return. Solve that hypocrisy and dealing with unwanted phone calls will become easier. imho
Your Honor, we would like you to impose sanction against him. He's not supposed to fight back. Please punish him for fighting back. Our strategy doesn't work when intelligent lawyers fight back. This must be put to an end right now.
"...possibly by agents in China, though the attack's origin is uncertain."
Why mention that it was possibly by agents in China when, immediately afterwards, you admit their origin is unknown? They could be agents from Russia. Or Iran. Or Canada. If you don't know, that means they could be from anywhere. Sure, it's fun to paint China as the badguy and gawd knows it's en vogue right now but, if it's unknown who was behind the attack, leave it at that.
You are aware there's a rather large difference between "I disagree with Obama's stance on [insert subject here]" and "you're a chump for being excited about this because he's no different than any other politician." You see the difference there, right? Disagreeing is democratic and I encourage it. Shitting on someone's parade because you're too skeptical to be hopeful any more is, well, an entirely different thing. In my book, at least.
A friend was posting on Facebook about how Obama is just another politician and nothing's going to change and that those who are getting caught up in the hype are just slaves to the American propaganda and prone to idealism and naivete.
I disagree.
Here's my response to him.
"Let us believe the world just might become a better place. Let us believe that people can be better - that people _want_ to be better. The world will only become better if people believe. Once people stop believing then they stop trying. I know it sounds fortune-cookie naive pie-in-the-sky but the only way for things to get better is for people to want things to get better and believe they can. Obama is a lightning rod symbol of that desire for Americans (and many around the world). He may be just another politician but he's also a symbol. Like Kennedy, like King, like so many others - he's just a man who's human in all the same ways we're human but he's also a symbol of so much more."
Yes, I know it's a bold thing to liken Obama to Kennedy and King but, I'm sorry, I get flashes of both great men when I watch Obama speak. He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope. Yes, I know he's a politician. Yes, I know he's just another man - he's just human. Yes, I know he'll be a politician in every sense of the word. But I also know what he's done to people. He's filled people with hope at a time when hope is a very rare commodity. He's invigorated a nation. He's made everyone believe that the world will be a slightly better place and helped them look forward to the future rather than dread it.
If you believe he's just another politician; if you believe he's going to be a big flop and disappoint and all that garbage, do yourself a favour and, more importantly, do everyone around you a favour and shut up. Keep your thoughts to yourself. You're allowed to have them and I won't take that away from you but, at a time when people are filled with hope and idealism, let them be. Don't try to shatter that hope. Don't try to wave away that idealism. Let the world be a slightly better place for those thoughts and emotions. It may be naive. Whatever. That's not a bad thing though. A bad thing is shitting on everyone else's parade.
Today, the world becomes a slightly better place. Be happy. be hopeful. Or shut up and let the rest of us be happy and hopeful.
What is this iTouch of which you speak? It sounds like something... interesting. Or do you mean iPod Touch, which is also interesting but in a far less sexually suggestive way? (Being a smartass aside, if you're going to develop for it, you might want to make sure you call it by the correct name. Ok, that's still being a smartass...)
The music industry doesn't care if the end result of file sharing is good for the economy (which I can easily agree it probably is) because they don't make money from the economy as a whole. They don't care if fans of music (including file sharers) are more inclined to pay outrageous prices to see a concert - most music companies don't make money from concert proceeds. For me, however, POLITICIANS should be paying attention to this information. Sure, they may have some lobbyist chewing their ear out about how bad file sharing is and that it must be stopped before the end of the world comes as a result but they need to be shown the bigger picture so that they can make the best decision for the people.
I know. I know. I can hope that there are still some politicians who are actually interested in doing the right thing for the people they represent...
User/slashdotter matters not. Select whichever word you want but the "who want people to adopt Ubuntu" is the important part. Try reading an entire post before replying.
"I really don't like this statement - why would a normal Linux user "want" everyone else to start using it?"
I didn't say "user" - I said "slashdotters should probably take seriously if they want people to adopt Ubuntu". Or, shortened, "slashdotters who want people to adopt Ubuntu". You obviously don't want other people to adopt Ubuntu (or another distro). Many slashdotters, however, do. So, while you may not like my statement, many slashdotters, who do want people to adopt Ubuntu, should consider the full implications of this story.
It's not a lie. Her laptop could do everything she needed with Ubuntu and the various programs available to it. The problem was she was not informed of _HOW_ to make it all happen. Just because she can doesn't mean she knows how. Until this hurdle is seriously dealt with, Ubuntu will continue to have an uphill climb to widespread acceptance.
While she may have a valid concern based on ignorance - she had problems using Ubuntu because she just didn't know how and that's something slashdotters should probably take seriously if they want people to adopt Ubuntu (or some other distro) - I do find her blaming Dell to be idiotic. It's one of the big problems we have with today's society-at-large. Rather than admit something might be one's own shortcoming ("I don't know what I'm doing with Ubuntu...") people try to find someone else to blame. It's all about where can I point the finger that isn't at me? So stupid.
You don't find probably the most blatant example of a political official making decisions while a conflict of interest existed to be relevant to the discussion? This example doesn't put something like a tertiary official being involved in the decision on when the US should switch to digital television into perspective?
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the fact that the USSR knew that, for every missile they launched at the US, they'd have one launched their way was a bigger missile defense than any missile defense system. There's enough time between launch and impact that both sides knew that sending anything skyward would spark a retaliation that would end up crippling both sides. (This is why Russia in Cuba was so scary - the defense of time would have been mostly eliminated.)
Why did I waste 30 seconds of my life watching that SNL skit? With the exception of Tina Fey's recent Sarah Palin skits, SNL hasn't been funny for well over a decade and that skit was a prime example of it...
This takes the phrase "getting lit" to a whole new level.
Seriously speaking though, this is very cool. I hope lots of other companies/industries that churn out biomass take a lesson from this.
"...and it will be rolled out free of charge. "
Translation: PLEASE COME BACK! We know millions of you tried our game when we launched but then Wrath of the Lich King came out and you all went back to WoW and dropped us but we'd REALLY like it if you came back. Please. Pretty please.
Ok, smartass comment out of the way, I feel bad for the Mythic crew. They had the best chance to take a substantial bite out of WoW's rather massive pie. But, in the end, they're playing in the same fantasy-genre sandbox and they just cannot compete with WoW. Yes, Warhammer may do some (or even many) things better than WoW but WoW also does many things better than Warhammer. More importantly, 11.5 million people play WoW. That's a MASSIVE player base and, given that the type of game is a massively multiplayer online game, that "massive" part is kind of important.
In my opinion, it will take a long time before another fantasy MMO comes out that has a similar real chance to take a substantial chunk of the market from WoW. If Warhammer couldn't do it, with all it's legacy behind it, it will require something truly spectacular to do it. Blizzard will need to screw things up at the same time that another company does a lot of things REALLY well with a hot IP (kinda like what WoW did to Everquest...). Warhammer had it's chance but missed the target. It'll be a while before another game has a shot. In my opinion.
"When will these companies realize who their customers are? It is the subscriber. "
I hate to break it to you but you're wrong. You are not the customer at all.
You are the commodity.
Process that for a bit and you'll realize who their customers really are... (Not trying to be a smart ass but, once I realized I was not a customer but was a commodity that happened to give them money I suddenly saw their actions as making a great deal more sense. Annoying and frustrating, to say the least, but it makes a great deal more sense now...)
When an ISP gets into the business of content delivery, they're devotion to being the best ISP possible goes out the window. And, unless I'm mistaken, Comcast and AT&T both have their own media delivery services (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) so I'm not the least bit surprised that they want to work with the RIAA in this.
I miss the days when our ISPs were internet service providers...
Please take a lesson from Highlander: there can be only one.
Because imaginary violence is bad for young and impressionable minds but imaginary imaginary violence is ok for children.
:)
Ok, I admit, that answer wasn't helpful at all... I did my best though...
Given that I saw it on 60 Minutes (or some such show) about ten years ago, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a link...
"I really doubt that the US Army is going to try and punish an innocent New Zealander for trying to do the right thing."
Unfortunately, "doing the right thing" does not protect one from bureaucrats. When someone in a suit wants someone punished, they will find a target, even if it happens to be the person who did "the right thing." My favourite example of this was a woman who worked for a mid-sized company as an accountant. She noticed something questionable on the books and reported it to her boss. Her boss told her to ignore it and proceed. She knew that her boss was dodging the IRS and, not wanting to be a party to tax evasion, she reported the company to the IRS and quit. The IRS began an investigation and found, sure enough, the company was illegally avoiding paying taxes. The company, of course, used every method to dodge the IRS. The IRS, having lost their obvious target, decided to use a different tactic and elected to go after the accountant who was working for the company at the time the questionable events took place.
The woman who reported the situation to them.
The IRS ceased her home and garnished her wages (from her new job) to pay off the outstanding taxes. Doing the right thing resulted in this woman being screwed, to say the least.
Yes, this is an extreme example and it's also an example of the old IRS (they've apparently had their power to abuse people reduced since then - this story took place ten or 15 years ago, iirc). But, it is still an example of someone doing the right thing yet still being turned into a target so that someone in a suit can punish _someone_.
One step in the right direction to a solution it to not allow "Unknown Number" calls any more. Yes, I know people can spoof their number (that would be the obvious step #2...) but, preventing people from hiding their numbers would go a long ways towards reducing the number of unwanted calls ("I don't recognize this number - screw it, voicemail can take it if it's important"). The fact that people can still hide their number is simply mind-boggling to me. If _you_ are calling _me_ (and thus invading my privacy) then you should have no expectation of privacy in return. Solve that hypocrisy and dealing with unwanted phone calls will become easier. imho
Your Honor, we would like you to impose sanction against him. He's not supposed to fight back. Please punish him for fighting back. Our strategy doesn't work when intelligent lawyers fight back. This must be put to an end right now.
Pathetic RIAA.
"...possibly by agents in China, though the attack's origin is uncertain."
Why mention that it was possibly by agents in China when, immediately afterwards, you admit their origin is unknown? They could be agents from Russia. Or Iran. Or Canada. If you don't know, that means they could be from anywhere. Sure, it's fun to paint China as the badguy and gawd knows it's en vogue right now but, if it's unknown who was behind the attack, leave it at that.
So this really is a killer app...
Hitler? Really? Goodwining a discussion this early? Really?
You are aware there's a rather large difference between "I disagree with Obama's stance on [insert subject here]" and "you're a chump for being excited about this because he's no different than any other politician." You see the difference there, right? Disagreeing is democratic and I encourage it. Shitting on someone's parade because you're too skeptical to be hopeful any more is, well, an entirely different thing. In my book, at least.
Granted. Just please attribute it to "whisperjeff" (lowercase).
A friend was posting on Facebook about how Obama is just another politician and nothing's going to change and that those who are getting caught up in the hype are just slaves to the American propaganda and prone to idealism and naivete.
I disagree.
Here's my response to him.
"Let us believe the world just might become a better place. Let us believe that people can be better - that people _want_ to be better. The world will only become better if people believe. Once people stop believing then they stop trying. I know it sounds fortune-cookie naive pie-in-the-sky but the only way for things to get better is for people to want things to get better and believe they can. Obama is a lightning rod symbol of that desire for Americans (and many around the world). He may be just another politician but he's also a symbol. Like Kennedy, like King, like so many others - he's just a man who's human in all the same ways we're human but he's also a symbol of so much more."
Yes, I know it's a bold thing to liken Obama to Kennedy and King but, I'm sorry, I get flashes of both great men when I watch Obama speak. He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope. Yes, I know he's a politician. Yes, I know he's just another man - he's just human. Yes, I know he'll be a politician in every sense of the word. But I also know what he's done to people. He's filled people with hope at a time when hope is a very rare commodity. He's invigorated a nation. He's made everyone believe that the world will be a slightly better place and helped them look forward to the future rather than dread it.
If you believe he's just another politician; if you believe he's going to be a big flop and disappoint and all that garbage, do yourself a favour and, more importantly, do everyone around you a favour and shut up. Keep your thoughts to yourself. You're allowed to have them and I won't take that away from you but, at a time when people are filled with hope and idealism, let them be. Don't try to shatter that hope. Don't try to wave away that idealism. Let the world be a slightly better place for those thoughts and emotions. It may be naive. Whatever. That's not a bad thing though. A bad thing is shitting on everyone else's parade.
Today, the world becomes a slightly better place. Be happy. be hopeful. Or shut up and let the rest of us be happy and hopeful.
What is this iTouch of which you speak? It sounds like something ... interesting. Or do you mean iPod Touch, which is also interesting but in a far less sexually suggestive way? (Being a smartass aside, if you're going to develop for it, you might want to make sure you call it by the correct name. Ok, that's still being a smartass...)
The music industry doesn't care if the end result of file sharing is good for the economy (which I can easily agree it probably is) because they don't make money from the economy as a whole. They don't care if fans of music (including file sharers) are more inclined to pay outrageous prices to see a concert - most music companies don't make money from concert proceeds. For me, however, POLITICIANS should be paying attention to this information. Sure, they may have some lobbyist chewing their ear out about how bad file sharing is and that it must be stopped before the end of the world comes as a result but they need to be shown the bigger picture so that they can make the best decision for the people.
I know. I know. I can hope that there are still some politicians who are actually interested in doing the right thing for the people they represent...
Did you even read my reply?
_WHO WANT PEOPLE TO ADOPT UBUNTU_
User/slashdotter matters not. Select whichever word you want but the "who want people to adopt Ubuntu" is the important part. Try reading an entire post before replying.
"I really don't like this statement - why would a normal Linux user "want" everyone else to start using it?"
I didn't say "user" - I said "slashdotters should probably take seriously if they want people to adopt Ubuntu". Or, shortened, "slashdotters who want people to adopt Ubuntu". You obviously don't want other people to adopt Ubuntu (or another distro). Many slashdotters, however, do. So, while you may not like my statement, many slashdotters, who do want people to adopt Ubuntu, should consider the full implications of this story.
It's not a lie. Her laptop could do everything she needed with Ubuntu and the various programs available to it. The problem was she was not informed of _HOW_ to make it all happen. Just because she can doesn't mean she knows how. Until this hurdle is seriously dealt with, Ubuntu will continue to have an uphill climb to widespread acceptance.
While she may have a valid concern based on ignorance - she had problems using Ubuntu because she just didn't know how and that's something slashdotters should probably take seriously if they want people to adopt Ubuntu (or some other distro) - I do find her blaming Dell to be idiotic. It's one of the big problems we have with today's society-at-large. Rather than admit something might be one's own shortcoming ("I don't know what I'm doing with Ubuntu...") people try to find someone else to blame. It's all about where can I point the finger that isn't at me? So stupid.
You don't find probably the most blatant example of a political official making decisions while a conflict of interest existed to be relevant to the discussion? This example doesn't put something like a tertiary official being involved in the decision on when the US should switch to digital television into perspective?