I don't see much of a difference when you are of the size each of those companies are. Being built to quickly and painlessly scale to swift demand (rather than taking two or more weeks) and failing to maintain security of a system that you know is under recent and direct threat of attack by people that you are actively antagonizing are kind of about on-par, to me.
Some games are superior on the PS3. Some are superior on the 360. Occasionally, some are even superior on the PC (though that's harder to say with each passing month as developers start to treat the PC more and more as an afterthought *sigh*). That said, I went for the PS3 version, because I liked the idea of getting the Steam version along with it (which is where I'll probably play it, anyway). Of course, I'm still waiting on being able to register my ID so I can activate the Steam copy.
Oh, and here's what I hate about console gamers. As much as my fellow PC gamers can be pompous narrow-minded dicks, at least I've never run into one who is like this guy:
I really don't understand these mindsets. I have three PS3s and three 360s (it's a big house and I'm a big nerd) and one Wii (though I have no idea where it is -- in a box in the garage somewhere; I haven't played it since Boom Blox in May of 2008) and then my PC. I prefer the PC. I enjoy the consoles. Some stuff is better on one. Some is better on the other. Often, there is little or no difference. People online in multiplayer are pretty much cockfaces on all of them. It's really not worth those people getting so worked up over it. Especially since there isn't even the difference between the systems to create enough room for a "linux versus windows" debate or something. It's more of a Coke versus Pepsi.
The best way to force the issue of requiring an "internet ID" authorized by governments and to really crack down on perceived piracy and homebrew and white-hat-hacking (for personal use / edification, etc) is by creating an emergency situation of epic proportions that you blame on the people you want to target. All of a sudden, you'll have the consumer on your side as well as the government. Governments have been doing this for ages.
It's the same in the States. You're not getting a gaming rig for "hundreds of dollars" here. A new videocard (unless you go commodity) is going to run you $300 to $750. A good estimate on a high-end (but not highest) gaming system without peripherals is around $1,500. If you're buying one that is pre-built, then it might be more. I have no idea.
Uh, it doesn't? What other console have you owned that locked you out of playing games for a week?
What other console, besides my PS3 has locked me out of playing (online) games for a week? Hm. Only my XBOX 360, which locked me out of playing (online) games for two weeks.
Sony does offer a paid service and it is identical to the free one, except it offers discounts on some downloadable games and automated patch downloads. It's called PSN Plus. PSN Plus users are also down right now and they are also part of the same data breach. So, the paid service is identical to the free service and the paid service is just as insecure as the free service.
Sony does offer a paid service. It's called PSN Plus and it's $60/yr. It's the same service with discounts on a few download titles plus automatic patch downloading.
Having a paid service wouldn't make it any better, anyway. They're not a little startup. It's Sony. I'm pretty sure they can bootstrap a service on their own dime without a significant impact to the bottom line. Especially when it's used to bolster the userbase for their mainline product.
Also, don't forget when XBOX Live had an outage for . . . a week? Or was it even longer?
Of course, that was an outage. Not a complete failure of all security measures.
It seemed that this was pretty obvious almost immediately, when people started looking at the map of "locations" and saying "but I've never been to a lot of these places and the ones I've been to are MILES off course". It seemed the obvious conclusion was that it was likely retaining tower positioning data. Now, perhaps in some people's lives this is enough information to provide unwanted tracking (it might not locate what block you're on, but it might be enough to note what city you've been in and when), so it seems that making it an encrypted file would be reasonable. But other than that . . . I still don't get why it's an issue.
I just wish people gave half the concern to privacy in general that they did to this iPhone drama.
I'm surprised so many people here read Gawker. When I think of Gawker, I think of all the AOL "People Magazine" style websites full of meaningless crap not of interest to anyone over twelve. Or with a penis. Granted, they're not exactly *that*. But come on. They're awfully close.
What do you mean? Do you think that the quality of video provided through a streaming XBOX service is going to somehow be worse than the HD you get from Netflix? Or the pseudo-HD you get from Comcast over cable?
Are we all really pissing over a way to possibly finally introduce some form of competition to the cable monopolies? As someone who has no interest in spending $100-$200 month (depending on whether you just want the crap channels that you don't watch or the crap channels plus the few channels with good content on them that are a ridiculous part of your monthly subscription) for the few worthwhile things on television, I'm interested in a possible alternative. If this can somehow get me reasonably priced access to just the channels/content I care about without having to install digital cable boxes all over the house, pay an expensive bill to the Cable company (who kept raising prices 10% or so per year for as long as I had it), then they might have a customer. Especially if it includes time-shifting capabilities.
Of course, if it turns out to just be "yo dawg, we put cable television on your xbox!" then . . . maybe not. Unless it'll be in competition against your cable television provider, rather than just another way for your existing provider to send you content (the way that ESPN content currently depends on whether you're already a cable subscriber in certain areas). Because, then, it's not any form of competition, after all.
The same sad attitude is beginning to overtake the Slashdot community that has already infected the rest of society. That whole "who gives a fuck about space when is till have potholes on my street?" bullshit. Because nothing is more aspirational and awe-inspiring and representative of man-kind's perseverance and wonder than fucking potholes.
Don't get me wrong. I know it's an incredible investment of resources. That's why I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with it all being privatized and letting market demand fuel exploration. But if we're going to make judgement calls that space flight isn't worth taking money out of my income every year to pay for (and I could probably agree), then let's have the same testicular fortitude to take the scissors to other bullshit right on down the line, instead of face-fucking every demographic of constituents with a throat full of "we won't touch your precious little program, because we want your votes". The same attitude that has helped us reach the point where we're trillions out of step every fucking year, now.
Whichever party proposed it would be ridiculed by the throngs from the other, because that's how the game is played and the status quo is maintained. Everything sucks and everyone in power is fucking shit up and as soon as [insert my bullshit 'team' here] gets back into power, the world will be all fucking unicorns.
I've yet to see much example from any bullshit party that the progress and advancement of mankind on any level (much less a knowledge-gathering and exploration one) is of any interest to any of them.
You're right, why be fiscally responsible and stop wasting money on countless social programs and special interest programs and prestige pork programs when we can just make people pay even more? Hey, at what point will it be enough money, by the way? I mean, at what amount of spending would it finally occur to you that simply taking more money from people isn't justified? Once we've bought everyone a house and a car and ensured their funded retirement? Who qualifies as "rich", anyway? Everyone who makes more money than you, I suspect? Isn't it funny how that always works out?
How much more breeding will we have to do to make us impervious to an asteroid strike or any other number of natural or man-made disasters? It's kind of like saying that the best way to diversify your portfolio to safeguard against risk is not to invest in several securities, but to invest even more money in just the one.
It's a shame you can't be bothered to post under your identity, so I can take your comments sersiously. However, you'll notice that I never said they were the same fucking network nor did I say that Steam took down the PSN. I said that there is a lot going on with the Portal release that is offering functionality that hasn't really been done before. While I have no clue what the actual internal deployment at either company is, it would be reasonable to suspect that there may be some work taken on Sony's side to facilitate all of this - whether only in registration or otherwise. I really don't know, since I'm obviously not privy to that information.
Therefore, it's not too unreasonable to think that perhaps something on the Sony side or involving the two has either fallen over on itself or perhaps it revealed a significant security issue they hadn't been aware of prior to trying the rollout for Portal. Whatever, blaming it on your enemy alleviates a lot of the pressure and kills two birds.
Of course I don't fucking know this to be the truth. Google the word "speculation". If I had some sort of inside knowledge that allowed me to know what was really going on, I would probably not be in a position to be posting on Slashdot about it, just like the other couple hundred commenters fucking wouldn't.
It's sad that we don't have this attitude toward everything else. It's only when it comes to extraordinary scientific exploration that we adopt the frugal mindset of having to pay for things before we try to do more things.
Sony has a bunch of pretty big games coming out right now. One of the biggest happens to be Portal 2, which when purchased for PS3 gives you a code so that you can register it via Steam on your PS3 and then use Steamworks to then register a free PC copy on your PC via Steam . Portal 2 saves to the cloud, so you can play Portal 2 co-op with people across all platforms (ie, PS3 players can play against a Mac player or PC player). Then you have all the Amazon EC2 stuff going on which some rumors claim is used by Sony for portions of PSN.
I have no idea whether that is true or not, but if I were a large corporation that just settled an issue with a guy making homebrew jailbreaks for my product and a few days later I made a massive alteration to my gaming network service by infusing a whole new service (Steamworks) that has 25,000,000 players on it during one of the biggest game launches of the year (Portal) and that merges PC, Mac, and PS3 users together so they can not only have a copy for one platform and own it for the others, but play with the users on those other platforms in real time and somehow this new thing went a little haywire as new rollouts often do and took down my entire network for five or six days . . . I might just use the opportunity to save face over "we done fucked up" and blame a bunch of anonymous crackers for everything, to buy us time and win some purchase in the hearts of the public who is impacted by this and has some rage to direct wherever they're told it belongs.
PSN is a free service, but PSN Plus is not. I don't see what it being free versus pay has to do with anything, however. Last time I checked, Sony was one of the top few major consumer products, technology, and media multi-national corporations on the planet with an incredible wealth of resources. They're not exactly a bumbling startup relying on each $4/mo payment to keep the doors open.
I looked into this last year, after buying a home. I was looking at $20k-$30k for panels that at their most efficient, would maybe power half of my needs and didn't include a battery system (meaning it's only good during the day - and not all days at that, of course). Most solutions had a warranty and life expectancy that meant they would not start to save me money over current power options until they were at the end of their life. And by then, even if they still work, they aren't expected to be very efficient anymore. I gave up shortly after that, so I didn't even investigate what I could expect as far as how they stand up to weather since this past year we got as low as -20 degrees and had several big hail storms.
I'm not dismissing the idea of solar power for homes. I think the idea is fantastic. It's just the reality I have a problem with. When the industry can actually offering me a solid product that saves money and is reliable and provides truly long term benefits and isn't just a fool's wager, I'll jump in. Until then, it isn't worth the investment. Maybe in another decade, we'll be good to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this Elisha Gray guy was more than a parable, though.
That any information was compromised at all was also 'unverified' for the first nine days of this event.
I don't see much of a difference when you are of the size each of those companies are. Being built to quickly and painlessly scale to swift demand (rather than taking two or more weeks) and failing to maintain security of a system that you know is under recent and direct threat of attack by people that you are actively antagonizing are kind of about on-par, to me.
Some games are superior on the PS3. Some are superior on the 360. Occasionally, some are even superior on the PC (though that's harder to say with each passing month as developers start to treat the PC more and more as an afterthought *sigh*). That said, I went for the PS3 version, because I liked the idea of getting the Steam version along with it (which is where I'll probably play it, anyway). Of course, I'm still waiting on being able to register my ID so I can activate the Steam copy.
Oh, and here's what I hate about console gamers. As much as my fellow PC gamers can be pompous narrow-minded dicks, at least I've never run into one who is like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkfVEpXdP_c
I really don't understand these mindsets. I have three PS3s and three 360s (it's a big house and I'm a big nerd) and one Wii (though I have no idea where it is -- in a box in the garage somewhere; I haven't played it since Boom Blox in May of 2008) and then my PC. I prefer the PC. I enjoy the consoles. Some stuff is better on one. Some is better on the other. Often, there is little or no difference. People online in multiplayer are pretty much cockfaces on all of them. It's really not worth those people getting so worked up over it. Especially since there isn't even the difference between the systems to create enough room for a "linux versus windows" debate or something. It's more of a Coke versus Pepsi.
The best way to force the issue of requiring an "internet ID" authorized by governments and to really crack down on perceived piracy and homebrew and white-hat-hacking (for personal use / edification, etc) is by creating an emergency situation of epic proportions that you blame on the people you want to target. All of a sudden, you'll have the consumer on your side as well as the government. Governments have been doing this for ages.
It's the same in the States. You're not getting a gaming rig for "hundreds of dollars" here. A new videocard (unless you go commodity) is going to run you $300 to $750. A good estimate on a high-end (but not highest) gaming system without peripherals is around $1,500. If you're buying one that is pre-built, then it might be more. I have no idea.
A one-week outage does not make Xbox live better.
Uh, it doesn't? What other console have you owned that locked you out of playing games for a week?
What other console, besides my PS3 has locked me out of playing (online) games for a week? Hm. Only my XBOX 360, which locked me out of playing (online) games for two weeks.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/03/xbox-live-outage-day-13-still-up-and-down-still-preventing-fu/
And XBOX Live is any better? Remember when XBOX Live was out for two weeks? You couldn't play that, either. And that isn't free.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/03/xbox-live-outage-day-13-still-up-and-down-still-preventing-fu/
Sony does offer a paid service and it is identical to the free one, except it offers discounts on some downloadable games and automated patch downloads. It's called PSN Plus. PSN Plus users are also down right now and they are also part of the same data breach. So, the paid service is identical to the free service and the paid service is just as insecure as the free service.
Sony does offer a paid service. It's called PSN Plus and it's $60/yr. It's the same service with discounts on a few download titles plus automatic patch downloading.
Having a paid service wouldn't make it any better, anyway. They're not a little startup. It's Sony. I'm pretty sure they can bootstrap a service on their own dime without a significant impact to the bottom line. Especially when it's used to bolster the userbase for their mainline product.
Also, don't forget when XBOX Live had an outage for . . . a week? Or was it even longer?
Of course, that was an outage. Not a complete failure of all security measures.
PC gamers have been left wanting.
No, we really haven't.
It seemed that this was pretty obvious almost immediately, when people started looking at the map of "locations" and saying "but I've never been to a lot of these places and the ones I've been to are MILES off course". It seemed the obvious conclusion was that it was likely retaining tower positioning data. Now, perhaps in some people's lives this is enough information to provide unwanted tracking (it might not locate what block you're on, but it might be enough to note what city you've been in and when), so it seems that making it an encrypted file would be reasonable. But other than that . . . I still don't get why it's an issue.
I just wish people gave half the concern to privacy in general that they did to this iPhone drama.
I'm surprised so many people here read Gawker. When I think of Gawker, I think of all the AOL "People Magazine" style websites full of meaningless crap not of interest to anyone over twelve. Or with a penis. Granted, they're not exactly *that*. But come on. They're awfully close.
Catching me jerking it to the Food Network a few times should cure them of their desire to invade my privacy.
What do you mean? Do you think that the quality of video provided through a streaming XBOX service is going to somehow be worse than the HD you get from Netflix? Or the pseudo-HD you get from Comcast over cable?
Are we all really pissing over a way to possibly finally introduce some form of competition to the cable monopolies? As someone who has no interest in spending $100-$200 month (depending on whether you just want the crap channels that you don't watch or the crap channels plus the few channels with good content on them that are a ridiculous part of your monthly subscription) for the few worthwhile things on television, I'm interested in a possible alternative. If this can somehow get me reasonably priced access to just the channels/content I care about without having to install digital cable boxes all over the house, pay an expensive bill to the Cable company (who kept raising prices 10% or so per year for as long as I had it), then they might have a customer. Especially if it includes time-shifting capabilities.
Of course, if it turns out to just be "yo dawg, we put cable television on your xbox!" then . . . maybe not. Unless it'll be in competition against your cable television provider, rather than just another way for your existing provider to send you content (the way that ESPN content currently depends on whether you're already a cable subscriber in certain areas). Because, then, it's not any form of competition, after all.
I have an idea. How about we don't pay for either one?
The same sad attitude is beginning to overtake the Slashdot community that has already infected the rest of society. That whole "who gives a fuck about space when is till have potholes on my street?" bullshit. Because nothing is more aspirational and awe-inspiring and representative of man-kind's perseverance and wonder than fucking potholes.
Don't get me wrong. I know it's an incredible investment of resources. That's why I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with it all being privatized and letting market demand fuel exploration. But if we're going to make judgement calls that space flight isn't worth taking money out of my income every year to pay for (and I could probably agree), then let's have the same testicular fortitude to take the scissors to other bullshit right on down the line, instead of face-fucking every demographic of constituents with a throat full of "we won't touch your precious little program, because we want your votes". The same attitude that has helped us reach the point where we're trillions out of step every fucking year, now.
Whichever party proposed it would be ridiculed by the throngs from the other, because that's how the game is played and the status quo is maintained. Everything sucks and everyone in power is fucking shit up and as soon as [insert my bullshit 'team' here] gets back into power, the world will be all fucking unicorns.
I've yet to see much example from any bullshit party that the progress and advancement of mankind on any level (much less a knowledge-gathering and exploration one) is of any interest to any of them.
You're right, why be fiscally responsible and stop wasting money on countless social programs and special interest programs and prestige pork programs when we can just make people pay even more? Hey, at what point will it be enough money, by the way? I mean, at what amount of spending would it finally occur to you that simply taking more money from people isn't justified? Once we've bought everyone a house and a car and ensured their funded retirement? Who qualifies as "rich", anyway? Everyone who makes more money than you, I suspect? Isn't it funny how that always works out?
How much more breeding will we have to do to make us impervious to an asteroid strike or any other number of natural or man-made disasters? It's kind of like saying that the best way to diversify your portfolio to safeguard against risk is not to invest in several securities, but to invest even more money in just the one.
It's a shame you can't be bothered to post under your identity, so I can take your comments sersiously. However, you'll notice that I never said they were the same fucking network nor did I say that Steam took down the PSN. I said that there is a lot going on with the Portal release that is offering functionality that hasn't really been done before. While I have no clue what the actual internal deployment at either company is, it would be reasonable to suspect that there may be some work taken on Sony's side to facilitate all of this - whether only in registration or otherwise. I really don't know, since I'm obviously not privy to that information.
Therefore, it's not too unreasonable to think that perhaps something on the Sony side or involving the two has either fallen over on itself or perhaps it revealed a significant security issue they hadn't been aware of prior to trying the rollout for Portal. Whatever, blaming it on your enemy alleviates a lot of the pressure and kills two birds.
Of course I don't fucking know this to be the truth. Google the word "speculation". If I had some sort of inside knowledge that allowed me to know what was really going on, I would probably not be in a position to be posting on Slashdot about it, just like the other couple hundred commenters fucking wouldn't.
It's sad that we don't have this attitude toward everything else. It's only when it comes to extraordinary scientific exploration that we adopt the frugal mindset of having to pay for things before we try to do more things.
Sony has a bunch of pretty big games coming out right now. One of the biggest happens to be Portal 2, which when purchased for PS3 gives you a code so that you can register it via Steam on your PS3 and then use Steamworks to then register a free PC copy on your PC via Steam . Portal 2 saves to the cloud, so you can play Portal 2 co-op with people across all platforms (ie, PS3 players can play against a Mac player or PC player). Then you have all the Amazon EC2 stuff going on which some rumors claim is used by Sony for portions of PSN.
I have no idea whether that is true or not, but if I were a large corporation that just settled an issue with a guy making homebrew jailbreaks for my product and a few days later I made a massive alteration to my gaming network service by infusing a whole new service (Steamworks) that has 25,000,000 players on it during one of the biggest game launches of the year (Portal) and that merges PC, Mac, and PS3 users together so they can not only have a copy for one platform and own it for the others, but play with the users on those other platforms in real time and somehow this new thing went a little haywire as new rollouts often do and took down my entire network for five or six days . . . I might just use the opportunity to save face over "we done fucked up" and blame a bunch of anonymous crackers for everything, to buy us time and win some purchase in the hearts of the public who is impacted by this and has some rage to direct wherever they're told it belongs.
PSN is a free service, but PSN Plus is not. I don't see what it being free versus pay has to do with anything, however. Last time I checked, Sony was one of the top few major consumer products, technology, and media multi-national corporations on the planet with an incredible wealth of resources. They're not exactly a bumbling startup relying on each $4/mo payment to keep the doors open.
I looked into this last year, after buying a home. I was looking at $20k-$30k for panels that at their most efficient, would maybe power half of my needs and didn't include a battery system (meaning it's only good during the day - and not all days at that, of course). Most solutions had a warranty and life expectancy that meant they would not start to save me money over current power options until they were at the end of their life. And by then, even if they still work, they aren't expected to be very efficient anymore. I gave up shortly after that, so I didn't even investigate what I could expect as far as how they stand up to weather since this past year we got as low as -20 degrees and had several big hail storms.
I'm not dismissing the idea of solar power for homes. I think the idea is fantastic. It's just the reality I have a problem with. When the industry can actually offering me a solid product that saves money and is reliable and provides truly long term benefits and isn't just a fool's wager, I'll jump in. Until then, it isn't worth the investment. Maybe in another decade, we'll be good to go.