The music industry will not allow Apple or anyone else to sell digital music online without DRM. And since the whole reason Apple wants to sell music online is to make the iPod more attractive, they're going to stick with their own proprietary DRM.
What "point" do you think is defeated, and what problem do you think you're solving for them? It's incredibly unlikely that Apple will lose this suit; they don't really have a problem.
Competition isn't capitalism if it's not competition for profits. GNOME and KDE being developed at the same time might benefit both of them, but it's because they're able to cooperate and borrow what works from each other rather than because there's financial pressure to create a better product or lose out on profits.
Capitalism works best for consumers with a level playing field, but the goal of the individual capitalist is to create an unlevel playing field so he can personally profit. Antitrust legislation exists to protect society from the capitalists, not to maintain a level playing field so capitalism can flourish. In a true laissez faire system, innovation is only necessary until someone can grab a monopoly position and exploit it; Microsoft is a prime example of the ideal capitalist corporation.
But "Communist" is a more accurate description that brings up even more deeply ingrained negative images.
There are lots of good ideas that have a lot in common with the ideals of socialism and communism. Marx would no doubt be happy with programmers (petty bourgeois though they be) creating wonderful software to share with everyone instead of having their labor exploited by capitalists. This is socialist, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
The trick is that when people hear "Communist" they think "evil, megalomaniacal dictators who couldn't care less about the workers in whose name they're killing anyone who opposes their rule" instead of "people working together for the common good instead of for the profit of the few".
There may be valid arguments to be made against socialist economics, but it's easier to throw pejorative labels around than to actually try to make those arguments.
Also, since porting games to OSX is not significantly different from porting
to Linux, the increased popularity of Linux should help Macs get new games
too.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Porting games to the Mac is nothing like porting games to Linux. There is no market for X Windows based games for the Mac. One could argue that there's probably not much of a market for commercial X Windows based games for Linux, either, but Mac users aren't going to windely adopt even free games that don't use native Mac APIs. The average Mac user won't even install X11, let alone play games under it.
especially considering the technological progressions that have been made circa 1998
Ummmmm... what?
The sad thing is that the part that got quoted in the article summary is written better than most of the rest of the article. "innumerable amount of things come to fruition"? Was this translated from the Japanese through French or something?
I know people can't be expected to RTFA, but did you read the article title, summary, or grandparent post?
No one was talking about native Cocoa applications written in java running under OS X. The suggestion was running a JVM as a separate OS to make java programs run faster. It would make them completely useless.
Microsoft took all freedom away from BSD-licensed code when it incorporated it into Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3.
Bullshit. I can still use any of that code in any project I want. The code is free. The code written by Microsoft is not free, but it's not the same code that was released under the BSD license. It's their code, and they can do what they want with it.
I'm sure the NFL owners will be kicking themselves and come begging for you to rescue them with your brilliant financial sense when the league goes completely bankrupt next year
Right. The TV in an RV doesn't work without hooking it up to external power. Which is why I'm always tripping over 500 mile long extension cords along the highway.
He's claiming, in public, that his company's monopoly browser is presenting warnings that should cause users of that browser (the default on the monopoly operating system) to believe that installing Firefox (which is recommended, remember, by the Dept. of Homeland Security's CERT as being more secure) is inherently insecure and dangerous.
That sounds like at least an antitrust violation, and probably fraud on top of it. Maybe a PATRIOT Act violation, as well.
Ok, maybe I should have qualified that as the biggest that anyone connected to it while C-64s were still being produced, except maybe one person with way too much money who for some reason wanted a really impressive C-64 instead of buying a better computer.
Yes, the Xetec Lt. Kernal drive was a 20 MB drive that plugged into the C-64's serial port. It was slow and expensive, but the fact that you could eliminate the need for a huge stack of 5.25" floppies really made it worth it. Especially considering the 1541 disk drive was the sort of electronic device that really did work better if you hit it really hard.
You can buy a CompactFlash card larger than the biggest hard drive anyone ever connected to a C64 for less than $10. Why would it need a hard drive in it?
Umm, Geo and Saturn are (were, in Geo's case) both parts of General Motors. Toyota, Lexus, and Scion are all part of the same huge Japanese company. Honda and Nissan are hardly small companies, either. Hyundai/Kia is pretty small compared to GM and Ford, but they're one of S. Korea's biggest companies and are hardly comparable to some girl building electronic toys at home.
Unfortunately, the costs involved with producing sports games aren't all in labor; the pro sports leagues and players associations charge the game makers lots of money in licensing fees. A group of people working on an Open Source project is going to have trouble getting a license (and without it, there's probably not going to be much demand for the newest fictional teams and players to be added).
As a team owner in a video game, you get to do things that way you wish the idiot owners in the real world would do them. In most sports games, this involves not making or not making the trades that your favorite team made. Maybe in NHL 2005 it involves getting together with the other owners to fire the stupid commissioner and replace him with someone who knows more about hockey than basketball.
Which isn't a sequel to the other Warcraft games because...?
OP wasn't contending that new games aren't better than the originals of their series. It's a lot easier to make a good game when you don't have to come up with an original concept, just build something better from it.
I'd argue that the opposite is true in movies, where the story is what's important. Too many sequels fail precisely because they're trying to play off what made the originals good, and end up seeming stale. You can make a game with a stale story and improved gameplay, and people will love it. Most people don't buy games for the story.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... Sony IS one of the major record labels.
What "point" do you think is defeated, and what problem do you think you're solving for them? It's incredibly unlikely that Apple will lose this suit; they don't really have a problem.
Competition isn't capitalism if it's not competition for profits. GNOME and KDE being developed at the same time might benefit both of them, but it's because they're able to cooperate and borrow what works from each other rather than because there's financial pressure to create a better product or lose out on profits.
Capitalism works best for consumers with a level playing field, but the goal of the individual capitalist is to create an unlevel playing field so he can personally profit. Antitrust legislation exists to protect society from the capitalists, not to maintain a level playing field so capitalism can flourish. In a true laissez faire system, innovation is only necessary until someone can grab a monopoly position and exploit it; Microsoft is a prime example of the ideal capitalist corporation.
There are lots of good ideas that have a lot in common with the ideals of socialism and communism. Marx would no doubt be happy with programmers (petty bourgeois though they be) creating wonderful software to share with everyone instead of having their labor exploited by capitalists. This is socialist, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
The trick is that when people hear "Communist" they think "evil, megalomaniacal dictators who couldn't care less about the workers in whose name they're killing anyone who opposes their rule" instead of "people working together for the common good instead of for the profit of the few".
There may be valid arguments to be made against socialist economics, but it's easier to throw pejorative labels around than to actually try to make those arguments.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Porting games to the Mac is nothing like porting games to Linux. There is no market for X Windows based games for the Mac. One could argue that there's probably not much of a market for commercial X Windows based games for Linux, either, but Mac users aren't going to windely adopt even free games that don't use native Mac APIs. The average Mac user won't even install X11, let alone play games under it.
Ummmmm... what?
The sad thing is that the part that got quoted in the article summary is written better than most of the rest of the article. "innumerable amount of things come to fruition"? Was this translated from the Japanese through French or something?
If you're going to nitpick someone's typing, at least have the sense to spellcheck your own.
You probably would have built them faster if you drank the beer after doing the soldering.
Who the hell modded this troll "informative"?
Why bother? Someone will come along 10 seconds later and revert your change, because they liked the link.
No one was talking about native Cocoa applications written in java running under OS X. The suggestion was running a JVM as a separate OS to make java programs run faster. It would make them completely useless.
Bullshit. I can still use any of that code in any project I want. The code is free. The code written by Microsoft is not free, but it's not the same code that was released under the BSD license. It's their code, and they can do what they want with it.
I'm sure the NFL owners will be kicking themselves and come begging for you to rescue them with your brilliant financial sense when the league goes completely bankrupt next year
In Soviet Russia, Poland makes jokes about YOU!
Right. The TV in an RV doesn't work without hooking it up to external power. Which is why I'm always tripping over 500 mile long extension cords along the highway.
Umm, do you imagine that you can only get satellite reception if you're near a populated area? You do know that these satellites are in space, right?
He's claiming, in public, that his company's monopoly browser is presenting warnings that should cause users of that browser (the default on the monopoly operating system) to believe that installing Firefox (which is recommended, remember, by the Dept. of Homeland Security's CERT as being more secure) is inherently insecure and dangerous.
That sounds like at least an antitrust violation, and probably fraud on top of it. Maybe a PATRIOT Act violation, as well.
Ok, maybe I should have qualified that as the biggest that anyone connected to it while C-64s were still being produced, except maybe one person with way too much money who for some reason wanted a really impressive C-64 instead of buying a better computer.
Yes, the Xetec Lt. Kernal drive was a 20 MB drive that plugged into the C-64's serial port. It was slow and expensive, but the fact that you could eliminate the need for a huge stack of 5.25" floppies really made it worth it. Especially considering the 1541 disk drive was the sort of electronic device that really did work better if you hit it really hard.
You can buy a CompactFlash card larger than the biggest hard drive anyone ever connected to a C64 for less than $10. Why would it need a hard drive in it?
"A proper education" doesn't necessarily refer to anything she would have gotten from the failed system if she hadn't dropped out.
Umm, Geo and Saturn are (were, in Geo's case) both parts of General Motors. Toyota, Lexus, and Scion are all part of the same huge Japanese company. Honda and Nissan are hardly small companies, either. Hyundai/Kia is pretty small compared to GM and Ford, but they're one of S. Korea's biggest companies and are hardly comparable to some girl building electronic toys at home.
Unfortunately, the costs involved with producing sports games aren't all in labor; the pro sports leagues and players associations charge the game makers lots of money in licensing fees. A group of people working on an Open Source project is going to have trouble getting a license (and without it, there's probably not going to be much demand for the newest fictional teams and players to be added).
As a team owner in a video game, you get to do things that way you wish the idiot owners in the real world would do them. In most sports games, this involves not making or not making the trades that your favorite team made. Maybe in NHL 2005 it involves getting together with the other owners to fire the stupid commissioner and replace him with someone who knows more about hockey than basketball.
OP wasn't contending that new games aren't better than the originals of their series. It's a lot easier to make a good game when you don't have to come up with an original concept, just build something better from it.
I'd argue that the opposite is true in movies, where the story is what's important. Too many sequels fail precisely because they're trying to play off what made the originals good, and end up seeming stale. You can make a game with a stale story and improved gameplay, and people will love it. Most people don't buy games for the story.