They're also approaching the idea of mecha with the assumption that they're an intrinsically good idea. There's a reason why there are no one-tonne bipeds in nature, and no ten-tonne land animals altogether. "Naturalistic" mecha fiction tends to have to come up with contrivances for why they're useful, and they don't often make sense. There was a grand (in-fiction) rant in the "Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual" about how "powerloaders" could simply step over obstructions, but the pressure on the feet would cause them to sink on most terrain.
That world does exist. It's called "Europe". Here in the UK, for example, phone carriers are obliged to unlock the phone (my carrier will do it from 30 days after the contract starts for the equivalent of about $25), and they're all in rabid competition for the "SIM-only" market that it's opened up. So you can get unlimited texts, ten hours of calls, and unlimited internet for about $30-$35 depending on carrier. If you don't want the unlimited internet access there's a carrier which does about the same for the equivalent of $15-$20. Those prices are including tax, by the way.
It's not the same relationship at all. The Wii hardware is largely derived from the GameCube's, but it's not simply "overclocked" or "more RAM" as in the case of the DSi. It's more like the relation between PC hardware a few years apart - same architecture, new features and higher performance components.
I'm not convinced that the "waning interest of consumers" actually exists outside of a niche. Console manufacturers make the most money during the tail-end of the cycle, when the console is affordable by the massmarket and is being produced at a profit or at least a significantly smaller loss. The manufacturers actually don't make a whole lot of money during the period in which it's being sold to "gamers [...] constantly looking for the latest and greatest". Those customers are a necessary part of getting the word out, but the people that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are really keen to please are the people who grab the system and a half-dozen three-year-old games for $300 at Walmart.
Back in 2004 Nintendo were famously going to extend the GC life cycle with new peripherals for the forseeable future, including a mysterious EyeToy rival. Said peripheral, presumably, turned into the Wii controller. So obviously this is an idea that's been considered in the past. I guess the GC seemed too aged, at the time, for them to actually go through with that.
Do you even know what Avantgo is? It's a service that downloads web content and then allows you to save it to a device which has no internet access (Palmtops, generally) to view later. It has nothing to do with data storage or, indeed, "the cloud".
Z-axis rotation hadn't occurred to me. I understand that the new controller uses ultrasound for measuring camera-to-controller distance, and the patent images suggested that the system was in stereo, so perhaps it exploits that somehow.
Actually I think you'll find that there's plenty of record stores that are more like your experience with the comic book store. It's the same with any niche, you will find that there are stores run by little despots who have gone mad with the knowledge that they're the only place in the county where you can get an obscure issue/vinyl/floppy of Super Punk Octo Pudding Gas Mark Seven.
Thing is, most of the Simpsons writers are geeks and nerds. That's why the show's so full of pop-culture and science in-jokes. The League of Extraordinary Freelancers, for crying out loud. It's not "us versus them", it's self-denigrating humour.
It's the fallacy of the slippery slope is my point. Carnivory is a necessary but not sufficient condition for cannibalism, but that does not mean hamburgers inevitably lead to eating one's neighbours. Likewise socialism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for communism, but tithing into the community chest doesn't immediately lead to you selling up your silver and moving into a shack.
You've misunderstood that sentence. He's saying that there's a false notion that it's a "zero-sum game" between individual and state, and that maximising individual power necessarily limits the overall strength of the group, and vice versa. He then goes on to explain that it's not true. The Cold War USA/USSR comparison is a perfectly good example: at a similar stage in technological progress, you had a nation with a better standard of living for the individual, and a stronger "state" (inasmuch as the military and social support were much better).
You seem to be conflating socialism and communism, there. Communism is (in its simplest form) a totally communal policy, where failure to share everything means you must be depriving your fellow man of something. Socialism is the more general idea of shared resources.
What? Western culture has been about empowering the individual, about heroes. Conversely, communist nations such as Russia and China are less about individuals, and more about "the good of many outweighs the good of the few".
Actually you've just beautifully illustrated his point. He was saying that we're indoctrinated with a false dichotomy that either it's the state or its the individual, and there's no compromise. He's arguing that in actual fact the greatest benefit to both comes somewhere in the middle, which is what you're going on about yourself in the rest of your post. By failing to see that point you're actually illustrating his idea.
Incidentally, the USSR wasn't the fucking Borg. There wasn't some Marxist Hive Mind in which individuals are inidentifiable. There's a lot of hero worship in Russia and China, in much the same sense that there's plenty of group pride in the USA.
Patent law in almost all countries only covers unique implimentations of an idea, not the idea itself. And in the few countries that are exceptions, you can only patent very particular ideas (e.g. "business methods"). So you can make something that's "Wiimote-like" in function, so long as its way of achieving that function does not infringe on Nintendo's patent and isn't covered by prior art. (Prior art objections are usually brought after-the-fact, mind you.)
I don't think either Nintendo or MS are keen to make something "perfect" that encourages people to invest in their competitors' consoles/controllers, respectively.
Slashdot Mirror
All scandals involving Wikipedia are super-serious. Just ask The Register.
They're also approaching the idea of mecha with the assumption that they're an intrinsically good idea. There's a reason why there are no one-tonne bipeds in nature, and no ten-tonne land animals altogether. "Naturalistic" mecha fiction tends to have to come up with contrivances for why they're useful, and they don't often make sense. There was a grand (in-fiction) rant in the "Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual" about how "powerloaders" could simply step over obstructions, but the pressure on the feet would cause them to sink on most terrain.
That world does exist. It's called "Europe". Here in the UK, for example, phone carriers are obliged to unlock the phone (my carrier will do it from 30 days after the contract starts for the equivalent of about $25), and they're all in rabid competition for the "SIM-only" market that it's opened up. So you can get unlimited texts, ten hours of calls, and unlimited internet for about $30-$35 depending on carrier. If you don't want the unlimited internet access there's a carrier which does about the same for the equivalent of $15-$20. Those prices are including tax, by the way.
It's not the same relationship at all. The Wii hardware is largely derived from the GameCube's, but it's not simply "overclocked" or "more RAM" as in the case of the DSi. It's more like the relation between PC hardware a few years apart - same architecture, new features and higher performance components.
I'm not convinced that the "waning interest of consumers" actually exists outside of a niche. Console manufacturers make the most money during the tail-end of the cycle, when the console is affordable by the massmarket and is being produced at a profit or at least a significantly smaller loss. The manufacturers actually don't make a whole lot of money during the period in which it's being sold to "gamers [...] constantly looking for the latest and greatest". Those customers are a necessary part of getting the word out, but the people that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are really keen to please are the people who grab the system and a half-dozen three-year-old games for $300 at Walmart.
Back in 2004 Nintendo were famously going to extend the GC life cycle with new peripherals for the forseeable future, including a mysterious EyeToy rival. Said peripheral, presumably, turned into the Wii controller. So obviously this is an idea that's been considered in the past. I guess the GC seemed too aged, at the time, for them to actually go through with that.
Do you even know what Avantgo is? It's a service that downloads web content and then allows you to save it to a device which has no internet access (Palmtops, generally) to view later. It has nothing to do with data storage or, indeed, "the cloud".
Why don't you ask GameTrak, who are manufacturing and selling their own wand-shaped motion controller for the Xbox 360 and PS3?
Z-axis rotation hadn't occurred to me. I understand that the new controller uses ultrasound for measuring camera-to-controller distance, and the patent images suggested that the system was in stereo, so perhaps it exploits that somehow.
"'We won't be actually selling [Windows 7] a day before the 23rd October"
That statement could not possibly be more precisely wrong, as it turns out. They will actually be selling Windows 7 a day before the 23rd of October.
Yes, Nintendo's patent on the Wii Remote stopped Sony from releasing a wand-shaped motion controller after all.
Could their results be any more organised?
Actually I think you'll find that there's plenty of record stores that are more like your experience with the comic book store. It's the same with any niche, you will find that there are stores run by little despots who have gone mad with the knowledge that they're the only place in the county where you can get an obscure issue/vinyl/floppy of Super Punk Octo Pudding Gas Mark Seven.
Thing is, most of the Simpsons writers are geeks and nerds. That's why the show's so full of pop-culture and science in-jokes. The League of Extraordinary Freelancers, for crying out loud. It's not "us versus them", it's self-denigrating humour.
Thanks for explaining the joke, Maury.
Shake phone to shuffle "citation needed" tags around page.
I think you'll find there's a delicious genetic distinction to be made there.
It's the fallacy of the slippery slope is my point. Carnivory is a necessary but not sufficient condition for cannibalism, but that does not mean hamburgers inevitably lead to eating one's neighbours. Likewise socialism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for communism, but tithing into the community chest doesn't immediately lead to you selling up your silver and moving into a shack.
Communism has nothing to do with sharing an individual's resources? What?
You've misunderstood that sentence. He's saying that there's a false notion that it's a "zero-sum game" between individual and state, and that maximising individual power necessarily limits the overall strength of the group, and vice versa. He then goes on to explain that it's not true. The Cold War USA/USSR comparison is a perfectly good example: at a similar stage in technological progress, you had a nation with a better standard of living for the individual, and a stronger "state" (inasmuch as the military and social support were much better).
You seem to be conflating socialism and communism, there. Communism is (in its simplest form) a totally communal policy, where failure to share everything means you must be depriving your fellow man of something. Socialism is the more general idea of shared resources.
What? Western culture has been about empowering the individual, about heroes. Conversely, communist nations such as Russia and China are less about individuals, and more about "the good of many outweighs the good of the few".
Actually you've just beautifully illustrated his point. He was saying that we're indoctrinated with a false dichotomy that either it's the state or its the individual, and there's no compromise. He's arguing that in actual fact the greatest benefit to both comes somewhere in the middle, which is what you're going on about yourself in the rest of your post. By failing to see that point you're actually illustrating his idea.
Incidentally, the USSR wasn't the fucking Borg. There wasn't some Marxist Hive Mind in which individuals are inidentifiable. There's a lot of hero worship in Russia and China, in much the same sense that there's plenty of group pride in the USA.
Socialism's no more a stepping stone towards Communism than carnivory is a stepping stone towards cannibalism.
Patent law in almost all countries only covers unique implimentations of an idea, not the idea itself. And in the few countries that are exceptions, you can only patent very particular ideas (e.g. "business methods"). So you can make something that's "Wiimote-like" in function, so long as its way of achieving that function does not infringe on Nintendo's patent and isn't covered by prior art. (Prior art objections are usually brought after-the-fact, mind you.)
I don't think either Nintendo or MS are keen to make something "perfect" that encourages people to invest in their competitors' consoles/controllers, respectively.