Ok, so this is slightly off topic, but it is still somewhat related.
What I would like to see, instead of watching people play games on TV, is an actual awards body for the gaming industry that isn't a complete joke. You know, something like the gaming equivalent to the Oscars or Grammy's. Not that SpikeTV bull crap.
I think there is a lot to be said for the people that make some of the best games every year. Not to mention, lifetime achievment awards for greats like Shigeru Miyamoto, etc.
I'm still shocked that with as much money as the videogame industry pulls in each year, we still don't have an awards body like that. Or if there is, why it isn't being broadcast on national TV each year.
If Bill Gates is evil, I hate to think what Steve Jobs is. All trolling aside, Mr. & Mrs. Gates have donated countless millions of dollars to better the world. What has Steve Jobs done? Oh yeah, that's right. Nothing. Unless releasing the iPod and iTunes DRM should be counted as a Good Thing (tm).
As the saying goes - "Jack of all trades, master of none."
Sony needs to make sure that they really come through one some of the features they are offering with the PS3. If the PS2 is any indication, Sony may be in for some tough times ahead. While at the time the PS2 was a great option for a cheap way to get a DVD player, its DVD menu system is absolutely horrendous. Also consider that the Emotion Engine never even came within flying distance of living up to its hype and expectations (expectations which were created by Sony, and not the media, might I add).
There has been a TON that Sony has committed for the PS3, and have tried to one-up everything that Microsoft dedicated for the XBox 360, presumably to get consumers to hold off until the PS3 arrives, knowing that wallets for $400 consoles and $60 games are limited. My speculation is that maybe half actually ends up in the final console. This will no doubt be a disappointment for the consumers that were consciously waiting for the PS3 because of those features, but fortunately that market is more limited (even though they are also most likely to be the early adopters). However, if they actually are able to do the rest of these things well and come up with some good marketing, especially the Blu-Ray DVD features, Sony may do very well with the PS3. If not, they could be rolling on their belly pretty quickly.
Here's my test for such dilemmas: 1. Minimize strain and hardship on ordinary, middle-class, hard working individuals.
2. Minimize strain and hardship on other businesses.
In that order. You're absolutely right - Microsoft is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. So what's the best way for Microsoft to come off as actually caring about their customers? Well, in this case, it would be pissing off those other nasties, aka Symantec or McAfee. I couldn't give a rats ass if those evil corporate monstrosities went belly up.
I mean seriously - who really cares besides them? Both companies, Symantec especially, have an absolutely notorious track record for screwing over their customers, providing absolutely miserable customer service, compromising their integrity, and everything that is evil in corporate America.
So yes, Microsoft should either put them out of business, or stay the hell away from the market altogether.
As for Microsoft adding intentional backdoors to sell Onecare, it's highly unlikely, especially when you could easily go to Mcafee or Symantec for all of your security needs let alone the free apps out there.
No no no - I am not suggesting that Microsoft would intentionally put in backdoors in order to sell their OneCare product. That's a bit too tin-foil for my tastes. It can't be denied, however, that the motivation for releasing a security patch (especially in the absense of high profile media coverage) in a timely manner goes down considerably. I mean, they have to "test" those patches before releasing them, right?
"We would hate to release a patch that could mess up our users' systems, so we need to test it for just a bit longer first.... and in the meantime, have you checked out our OneCare package? It will protect you from any viruses caused by this security hole while the patch is being made!"
Like I said in another post - the second we see an AV signature to protect against a virus that exploits a security hole, before we see the patch for that security hole, the world should (and in my opinion, has every right to) go apeshit on Microsoft.
this is not a case of Windows having a security hole and Microsoft knows about it and charges money for the fix
Maybe not right now, but the very first time I see an AV signature to stop a virus that is exploiting a hole before I see the patch to fix that hole itself (which I guarantee is going to happen - just wait), I better see you and everyone else in the Slashdot world that is ok with this go up in arms.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not really anonymous when you post as an AC here...
I've actually wondered about this. What protections does Slashdot place for AC posts? Are IP addresses hashed? Obviously they aren't thrown out completely, in order to cut down on spam bots, but I don't see any reason why IP addresses would need to be kept in their original form by Slashdot. With all the emphasis on privacy that the userbase here has, I would think that not doing everything possible to be as anonymous as possible while still protecting from abuse would draw a lot of criticism to Slashdot itself.
Damn right it is purely business - and that's the problem. Suing for bundling everything under the sun with the intention of abusing monopolies is one thing, but bundling (for free), security software to protect the operating system that should be secured in the first place, does not strike me as monopolistic abuse. Using that excuse sure is convenient though, isn't it?
Being afraid of getting sued hasn't really slowed Microsoft down in the past, so why should they start when it comes to the security of their OS? Oh, right - because they can make money on it this time around. What makes you think that Microsoft isn't using tricks and internal-only API's to make their AV product that much better than the competition? Isn't that abusing their monopoly just as well as if they were to provide it for free? What happens when a security hole goes unfixed for a month because Microsoft has gotten lazy, and it's in their best interest not to fix it to begin with anyway, because they stand to profit from OneCare sales if they "test" a patch just a bit longer? Sure, for high-profile exploits they'll fix them right away to save the PR backlash, but they still are ahead in the end.
I don't hate Microsoft. I really don't. I think they have contributed a fuckton to the industry. But this is just plain wrong, and does nothing more than cast doubt into their userbase regarding their credibility.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Surely you can understand that such a simple answer doesn't cover all scenarios and possibilities, and even if it may work for you and me, that answer isn't going to work out quite so well with 90% of the rest of the world.
Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service? I have seen arguments both ways, but I can't help but feel that charging for such a service amounts to little more than extortion. I mean, it's their operating system, and problems with their code that *often* (but not always) allows for these problems in the first place, so why should I have to pay extra for protection from malware that should have been stopped to begin with?
Now, I know that often times it is the fault of stupid users when spyware, viruses, etc. get loaded onto a system, but for any reasonably computer savvy individual, these things blindside you when you least expect them.
I'm sorry, but anti-trust issues, in my opinion, are nothing more than a mask to use as an excuse for what this really is - extortion intended to nickle and dime consumers that rely on Windows because they can't/won't/don't know how to use anything else. Am I supposed to believe now that Microsoft won't intentionally keep open holes in their systems in order to "persuade" their users into purchasing this service? Somehow, I don't put such evil past them.
I think that the simple fact that Google, Microsoft, or any other company is legally obligated to maximize profits at all costs is the very reason why congress *should* be getting involved here. All of a sudden Google becomes "evil" for dealing in China, and getting sued by shareholders if they don't?
If I were Google, and honestly concerned about not "being evil", then I would be backing up this legislation 100%. That way they can't be sued by their shareholders when they tell them that they can't operate in China because they would be forced into censorship policies that would be illegal.
But then again, where do you draw the line if Congress were to get involved..... *sigh*
It's not like a gay couldn't play WoW, as I'm sure thousands of gay people do play, but rather that recruiting people to a gay guild is adding unnecessary tension. It's like naming a guild "republican lovers" and trying to recruit people in to that kind of guild. I'm sure many people would dislike that too and I'm almost certain Blizzard would act similarly.
And what is wrong with either? I understand where they are coming from, but at the same time, if I am playing a game that takes advantage of teamwork, the best bet is to try and get players around you that have similar ideals, passions, ways of thinking, etc. This provides an opportunity for players to form deep-seeded friendships, which online games do for a lot of people. If my passion is being a Republican (or Democrat, or snowboarder, or whatever), then I don't see why I should be disallowed from forming a group of players together that have these similar passions when I am clearly not doing so out of malicious intent.
The MPAA, in response to questions regarding the rating, defended the rating, saying "The rating was appropriately assigned and is just, as it clearly exposes some of the biggest dicks in the industry."
If we had those in the USA, we'd have a totally automated farming workforce
It's called a combine. You'd be surprised how much one man can do when equipped with one of these amazing devices. Most agricultural farmers in America have one these days. And if they don't, they hire somebody that does.
Maybe by the end of the two years, they will have figured out that non-DRMed music sells better than DRMed music While this may be true for you and me, it is not for the general population. Most consumers don't even have the slightest clue about what is going on. I don't see the market changing for their non-DRM'ed music more than a percentage point or two. And if they were to sell more, it wouldn't be because there is no DRM on there (according to them), but because they were simply promoting "better artists" that had "more to offer".
Of Course Innovation is Dangerous
on
Size Does Matter
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course innovation is dangerous. When you do things that haven't been done before, you risk alienating or turning off your potential userbase. And we're talking about gamers here, which are absolutely notorious for coming down (and hard!) on things they don't like.
Making something innovative carries huge risks, especially in the gaming community.
My point being the the particles still had to come from somewhere that we can't comprehend, just as well as God would have. Either way requires some sort of leap of faith. Pick your poison.
This is one of those really mind-boggling thoughts. Honestly, though, that frame of mind doesn't hold water on its own. Even if you support the idea that life has not come from an intelligent being, all of those particles that have been floating around to spontaneously create life over the course of billions of years had to all of a sudden "come from somewhere", too.
I don't think humans can comprehend it. Everything we know and understand had a beginning. Whether "God" was always there, or whether all of the stuff in the universe that is there now was always there, I don't think humans can comprehend the "always there" part entirely.
There are a number of reasons why, including that maybe you're talking over IM with a client or coworker. There are a number of reasons why, but even more importantly, that is a privacy issue that I nor anybody else should have to justify our preference of that feature's existence.
That attitude, from what I have picked up, is pretty standard with the gaim developers, and it has frustrated me as well (note: I have not dealt with any of them personally, however).
There is a big thread on the SF projects page regarding all of the options that have been removed in Gaim 2.0, and a *lot* of people are frustrated over it, but the general response from the developers, IMO, has been very rude, and in a tone that projects that they don't really care if other people agree with their decisions or not. I've read other posts from users that have complained about the lack of "care" and bad attitude reponse that the gaim development team seems to have for people offering suggestions, seeking support, or who otherwise disagree with the decisions that have been made.
I, too, am considering dropping Gaim based on the attitude that I have witnessed.
This really bugs me, and is the reason I will not be upgrading to Gaim 2.0
* Removed "Gaim usage" and "Idle time reporting" preferences; behavior now always uses mouse/keyboard when available
I do not have Gaim report my idle time, largely for work reasons. If I am busy at work or whatever, I don't want the "obligation" of having to reply to a person that notices that I am no longer idle. This is a very common thing, and I prefer that that remains private. As far as anybody else should be concerned, I am away. It doesn't mean I am avoiding the person, but sometimes you have other things that need to get done, and I don't want to have to explain that to people that I don't want upset at me.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so this is slightly off topic, but it is still somewhat related.
What I would like to see, instead of watching people play games on TV, is an actual awards body for the gaming industry that isn't a complete joke. You know, something like the gaming equivalent to the Oscars or Grammy's. Not that SpikeTV bull crap.
I think there is a lot to be said for the people that make some of the best games every year. Not to mention, lifetime achievment awards for greats like Shigeru Miyamoto, etc.
I'm still shocked that with as much money as the videogame industry pulls in each year, we still don't have an awards body like that. Or if there is, why it isn't being broadcast on national TV each year.
I mean, come on.... everybody knows all Asianses look the same! /me ducks for cover
1) Gates is evil. What more do you need?
If Bill Gates is evil, I hate to think what Steve Jobs is. All trolling aside, Mr. & Mrs. Gates have donated countless millions of dollars to better the world. What has Steve Jobs done? Oh yeah, that's right. Nothing. Unless releasing the iPod and iTunes DRM should be counted as a Good Thing (tm).
As the saying goes - "Jack of all trades, master of none."
Sony needs to make sure that they really come through one some of the features they are offering with the PS3. If the PS2 is any indication, Sony may be in for some tough times ahead. While at the time the PS2 was a great option for a cheap way to get a DVD player, its DVD menu system is absolutely horrendous. Also consider that the Emotion Engine never even came within flying distance of living up to its hype and expectations (expectations which were created by Sony, and not the media, might I add).
There has been a TON that Sony has committed for the PS3, and have tried to one-up everything that Microsoft dedicated for the XBox 360, presumably to get consumers to hold off until the PS3 arrives, knowing that wallets for $400 consoles and $60 games are limited. My speculation is that maybe half actually ends up in the final console. This will no doubt be a disappointment for the consumers that were consciously waiting for the PS3 because of those features, but fortunately that market is more limited (even though they are also most likely to be the early adopters). However, if they actually are able to do the rest of these things well and come up with some good marketing, especially the Blu-Ray DVD features, Sony may do very well with the PS3. If not, they could be rolling on their belly pretty quickly.
Here's my test for such dilemmas:
1. Minimize strain and hardship on ordinary, middle-class, hard working individuals.
2. Minimize strain and hardship on other businesses.
In that order. You're absolutely right - Microsoft is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. So what's the best way for Microsoft to come off as actually caring about their customers? Well, in this case, it would be pissing off those other nasties, aka Symantec or McAfee. I couldn't give a rats ass if those evil corporate monstrosities went belly up.
I mean seriously - who really cares besides them? Both companies, Symantec especially, have an absolutely notorious track record for screwing over their customers, providing absolutely miserable customer service, compromising their integrity, and everything that is evil in corporate America.
So yes, Microsoft should either put them out of business, or stay the hell away from the market altogether.
As for Microsoft adding intentional backdoors to sell Onecare, it's highly unlikely, especially when you could easily go to Mcafee or Symantec for all of your security needs let alone the free apps out there.
No no no - I am not suggesting that Microsoft would intentionally put in backdoors in order to sell their OneCare product. That's a bit too tin-foil for my tastes. It can't be denied, however, that the motivation for releasing a security patch (especially in the absense of high profile media coverage) in a timely manner goes down considerably. I mean, they have to "test" those patches before releasing them, right?
"We would hate to release a patch that could mess up our users' systems, so we need to test it for just a bit longer first.... and in the meantime, have you checked out our OneCare package? It will protect you from any viruses caused by this security hole while the patch is being made!"
Like I said in another post - the second we see an AV signature to protect against a virus that exploits a security hole, before we see the patch for that security hole, the world should (and in my opinion, has every right to) go apeshit on Microsoft.
this is not a case of Windows having a security hole and Microsoft knows about it and charges money for the fix
Maybe not right now, but the very first time I see an AV signature to stop a virus that is exploiting a hole before I see the patch to fix that hole itself (which I guarantee is going to happen - just wait), I better see you and everyone else in the Slashdot world that is ok with this go up in arms.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not really anonymous when you post as an AC here...
I've actually wondered about this. What protections does Slashdot place for AC posts? Are IP addresses hashed? Obviously they aren't thrown out completely, in order to cut down on spam bots, but I don't see any reason why IP addresses would need to be kept in their original form by Slashdot. With all the emphasis on privacy that the userbase here has, I would think that not doing everything possible to be as anonymous as possible while still protecting from abuse would draw a lot of criticism to Slashdot itself.
Damn right it is purely business - and that's the problem. Suing for bundling everything under the sun with the intention of abusing monopolies is one thing, but bundling (for free), security software to protect the operating system that should be secured in the first place, does not strike me as monopolistic abuse. Using that excuse sure is convenient though, isn't it?
Being afraid of getting sued hasn't really slowed Microsoft down in the past, so why should they start when it comes to the security of their OS? Oh, right - because they can make money on it this time around. What makes you think that Microsoft isn't using tricks and internal-only API's to make their AV product that much better than the competition? Isn't that abusing their monopoly just as well as if they were to provide it for free? What happens when a security hole goes unfixed for a month because Microsoft has gotten lazy, and it's in their best interest not to fix it to begin with anyway, because they stand to profit from OneCare sales if they "test" a patch just a bit longer? Sure, for high-profile exploits they'll fix them right away to save the PR backlash, but they still are ahead in the end.
I don't hate Microsoft. I really don't. I think they have contributed a fuckton to the industry. But this is just plain wrong, and does nothing more than cast doubt into their userbase regarding their credibility.
The answer is simple: don't buy Windows
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Surely you can understand that such a simple answer doesn't cover all scenarios and possibilities, and even if it may work for you and me, that answer isn't going to work out quite so well with 90% of the rest of the world.
Is it wrong for me to feel used and abused at the idea that Microsoft wants to charge for this service? I have seen arguments both ways, but I can't help but feel that charging for such a service amounts to little more than extortion. I mean, it's their operating system, and problems with their code that *often* (but not always) allows for these problems in the first place, so why should I have to pay extra for protection from malware that should have been stopped to begin with?
Now, I know that often times it is the fault of stupid users when spyware, viruses, etc. get loaded onto a system, but for any reasonably computer savvy individual, these things blindside you when you least expect them.
I'm sorry, but anti-trust issues, in my opinion, are nothing more than a mask to use as an excuse for what this really is - extortion intended to nickle and dime consumers that rely on Windows because they can't/won't/don't know how to use anything else. Am I supposed to believe now that Microsoft won't intentionally keep open holes in their systems in order to "persuade" their users into purchasing this service? Somehow, I don't put such evil past them.
I always thought that DRM was appropriately named, it just depends on the frame of mind that you are coming from.
DRM - Digital Rights Management. The system is managing your rights... by taking them away, instead of you managing your rights.
I think that the simple fact that Google, Microsoft, or any other company is legally obligated to maximize profits at all costs is the very reason why congress *should* be getting involved here. All of a sudden Google becomes "evil" for dealing in China, and getting sued by shareholders if they don't?
If I were Google, and honestly concerned about not "being evil", then I would be backing up this legislation 100%. That way they can't be sued by their shareholders when they tell them that they can't operate in China because they would be forced into censorship policies that would be illegal.
But then again, where do you draw the line if Congress were to get involved..... *sigh*
It's not like a gay couldn't play WoW, as I'm sure thousands of gay people do play, but rather that recruiting people to a gay guild is adding unnecessary tension. It's like naming a guild "republican lovers" and trying to recruit people in to that kind of guild. I'm sure many people would dislike that too and I'm almost certain Blizzard would act similarly.
And what is wrong with either? I understand where they are coming from, but at the same time, if I am playing a game that takes advantage of teamwork, the best bet is to try and get players around you that have similar ideals, passions, ways of thinking, etc. This provides an opportunity for players to form deep-seeded friendships, which online games do for a lot of people. If my passion is being a Republican (or Democrat, or snowboarder, or whatever), then I don't see why I should be disallowed from forming a group of players together that have these similar passions when I am clearly not doing so out of malicious intent.
This movie just made my must see list
;)
Yeah, same here. It isn't publically available right now, though. However, I hear that these guys may be able to hook you up with a copy
The MPAA, in response to questions regarding the rating, defended the rating, saying "The rating was appropriately assigned and is just, as it clearly exposes some of the biggest dicks in the industry."
If we had those in the USA, we'd have a totally automated farming workforce
It's called a combine. You'd be surprised how much one man can do when equipped with one of these amazing devices. Most agricultural farmers in America have one these days. And if they don't, they hire somebody that does.
Maybe by the end of the two years, they will have figured out that non-DRMed music sells better than DRMed music
While this may be true for you and me, it is not for the general population. Most consumers don't even have the slightest clue about what is going on. I don't see the market changing for their non-DRM'ed music more than a percentage point or two. And if they were to sell more, it wouldn't be because there is no DRM on there (according to them), but because they were simply promoting "better artists" that had "more to offer".
Of course innovation is dangerous. When you do things that haven't been done before, you risk alienating or turning off your potential userbase. And we're talking about gamers here, which are absolutely notorious for coming down (and hard!) on things they don't like.
Making something innovative carries huge risks, especially in the gaming community.
My point being the the particles still had to come from somewhere that we can't comprehend, just as well as God would have. Either way requires some sort of leap of faith. Pick your poison.
This is one of those really mind-boggling thoughts. Honestly, though, that frame of mind doesn't hold water on its own. Even if you support the idea that life has not come from an intelligent being, all of those particles that have been floating around to spontaneously create life over the course of billions of years had to all of a sudden "come from somewhere", too.
I don't think humans can comprehend it. Everything we know and understand had a beginning. Whether "God" was always there, or whether all of the stuff in the universe that is there now was always there, I don't think humans can comprehend the "always there" part entirely.
Just a thought...
There are a number of reasons why, including that maybe you're talking over IM with a client or coworker. There are a number of reasons why, but even more importantly, that is a privacy issue that I nor anybody else should have to justify our preference of that feature's existence.
That attitude, from what I have picked up, is pretty standard with the gaim developers, and it has frustrated me as well (note: I have not dealt with any of them personally, however).
There is a big thread on the SF projects page regarding all of the options that have been removed in Gaim 2.0, and a *lot* of people are frustrated over it, but the general response from the developers, IMO, has been very rude, and in a tone that projects that they don't really care if other people agree with their decisions or not. I've read other posts from users that have complained about the lack of "care" and bad attitude reponse that the gaim development team seems to have for people offering suggestions, seeking support, or who otherwise disagree with the decisions that have been made.
I, too, am considering dropping Gaim based on the attitude that I have witnessed.
This really bugs me, and is the reason I will not be upgrading to Gaim 2.0
* Removed "Gaim usage" and "Idle time reporting" preferences; behavior now always uses mouse/keyboard when available
I do not have Gaim report my idle time, largely for work reasons. If I am busy at work or whatever, I don't want the "obligation" of having to reply to a person that notices that I am no longer idle. This is a very common thing, and I prefer that that remains private. As far as anybody else should be concerned, I am away. It doesn't mean I am avoiding the person, but sometimes you have other things that need to get done, and I don't want to have to explain that to people that I don't want upset at me.
I don't see the link in your sig regarding slavery.