Just because they are including an optical drive doesn't necessarily prove the games will continue to be distributed on optical media. They could have it on there for an PS3/PS2 emulator to use while titles for the new platform are download only.
Also, one of the best marketing points for the PS3 is the Bluray player, making it a more useful general home entertainment device compared to an XBox360. They could keep the drive for this extra functionality since the drive itself is so much cheaper today than it was when the PS3 first came out. I fully expect Microsoft to use a BD drive as well now that the HD-DVD add-on boondoggle is behind them.
They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
Depends on where you work. Where i work, we take security seriously. You cant even walk in the door with another person. Your photo is verified against your face as you enter. We also have metal detectors on the doors, and the guards have real guns to stop you with, not just a radio to call for help.
Unless you worked in a government installation or a prison I have some doubts as to that last sentence. The guards may be carrying guns, but if they're private security personnel their usage was likely restricted to self-defense in the event of an intruder. I don't think assault with a deadly weapon would be considered a justifiable action to stop a trespasser as part of their job.
Yes, they buy up popular websites, make editorial and staffing changes to fit their monetizing goals, and then leech off the site's residual popularity until the talented people they still have and their audience get tired of the new sites and go elsewhere. There's enough Op-Ed blog bits about Tech Crunch post-AOL acquisition to show this.
A dying company playing vampire on young properties to support it's existence a little while longer. Soon they'll be another Lycos.
The system is rigged to prevent any change by average people and you know it. Money buys you access, access buys you laws. Period.
It is rigged. How do you think it got that way? Because people didn't care.
By "people" you mean the ones in power who didn't have the moral fiber to refuse the lobbyists' money to start with because they were elected to represent their constituents and not corporations. But they didn't care, it was just the entire basis of their jobs.
They would have more incentive to rush a product to market to make the 5-year deadline (and their shareholders would treat it as a deadline), and less incentive to maintain backward compatibility (since then people would have to be running the most recent version of Windows to run the current versions of popular software). It would be a handy way of ensuring future OS upgrades if the new version of Office was not compatible with the previous version Windows.
On the flipside, it probably would mean you couldn't expect security updates for releases beyond their copyright date. Why should they when you can legally use it without giving them money?
But... isn't the situation similar now? Once you've bought the product you've given them the money, and they wont be getting any more until you upgrade to a new version. Yet Microsoft continues to release patches for years after that, even after they've released that next version they would rather you upgrade to. With your thinking Microsoft should have stopped releasing XP patches as soon as Vista became available, or when they stopped selling XP licenses.
The pirates do none of that, they take something, strip out the ads, and redistribute it without permission. People like it, because it's free, but that doesn't make it the same as what cable companies do.
Both cable companies and the TV pirates are doing the same thing, they are taking a product (the finished show), repackaging it, and distributing it to consumers.
The point of my post was that neither one is offering a "product", really. They're offering a service of access to the product. But for some reason it's okay for the cablecos to use that term incorrectly.
There are differences, yes. But they're still both products.
No they aren't, and that was my point. The parent post (to mine) complained about referring to the shows the pirates make available being referred to as a "product" since the pirates are not involved in the actual production of the content. I pointed out that cablecos refer to their wares as a product too they aren't doing anything in regards to production, either. For some reason it's okay to call cable TV a "product" when it's more legitimate legally. Its not a product, it's a service. You don't get a tangible item, and your relationship with the cableco is not a discrete event with the exchange of money for goods. It's a continuous providing of services for a recurring fee.
Personally I think cablecos (and banks for that matter) try to frame their services as products because to a consumer is implies a set of standards. Their offering is a set thing and you have little recourse if you do not agree with it. A service is more open to interpretation of quality and guarantees of quality by the consumer's standard. If I have a problem with a roofing job, as the person who paid for that service I can haggle and get things fixed with the contractor. But if I buy a cheap product and it fails on me. Unless it is covered by a manufactures warranty generally I am SOL. Better be wiser next time. See the difference in responsibility that's implied between the two?
As a long-time advocate of censorship in mass-distribution media, I have to remind everyone that this is also a form of censorship.
Which part is censorship?
The part where consumers get to opt-in to a service to skip ads, continue watching TV with ads as they have before, or continue to DVR it and make up their own minds then? Or the part where the owner of the content wants to sell advertising inserted with the product and not have a reseller editing the final item without their say-so?
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Choice is Censorship.
Cable companies are just distributors, not show producers, yet they're always referring to their pay-TV as a "product". How is that any different than pirates offering the same "product" as television without ads delivered over the Internet for free?
Consider that Hulu gives people access to shows when they want to watch them just like a DVR, except you can't skip the ads.. Yet we keep hearing about the television networks, the very people who own Hulu, and the very people who want to make money from advertising inserted into their content, doing things with the company that will drive people away and kill it.
Don't know if you work in the television advertising industry, but if so have you ever thought of asking your clients "Do you guys really have a clue?"
Be careful, if they knew that, there will be a push to make such features on devices illegal, or every time you press fast forward it inserts a 30 second advertisement!
This is happening only when you watch shows the day after they air. A consumer can do the same thing right now with a DVR. Simply record all the shows and watch them the next night, fast forwarding through all the commercials. Dish is simply automating the process.
Shouldn't that be isn't owned or controlled by the employer or company instead? An employee's personal computer (and I'm using personal here to mean one that belongs to the employee) shouldn't be accessed by the employer either.
Haven't you heard? Nobody keeps their stuff on their PCs anymore. They upload it to social networking sites, which they don't own, and don't keep backups. Then they fret about what they're going to do if Facebook ever goes away and how they'll get all their stuff back.
But the core problem isn't necessarily Java's exploitability; nearly all software is exploitable. It's unpatched Java. Few successful Java-related attacks are related to zero-day exploits. Almost all are related to Java security bugs that have been patched for months (or longer),' Grimes writes. 'The bottom line is that we aren't addressing the real problems. It isn't a security bug here and there in a particular piece of software; that's a problem we'll never get rid of. Instead, we allow almost all cyber criminals to get away with their Internet crime without any penalty. They almost never get caught and punished.
This conclusion doesn't really seem to follow the premise. If the security issue is already-patched exploits being used for attacks, isn't the real issue people not keeping their Java up-to-date with security fixes. We're always quick to jump on Joe Sixpack for not keeping their Windows installation current on hotfixes, or the webserver team for not keeping PHP/Apache/etc behind, how is this any different?
You know what would make this a lot less of a problem? Silent automated updates The Java updater appears often enough to be a nuisance for some (me included), yet Java itself is obscure enough to the end user some don't know what it is, unlike Flash. "What? A new version of Java is available? What's that? Don't click 'install' dear, I've never heard of it, it might be spyware!" I'm sure this happens more often than Oracle thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because they are including an optical drive doesn't necessarily prove the games will continue to be distributed on optical media. They could have it on there for an PS3/PS2 emulator to use while titles for the new platform are download only.
Also, one of the best marketing points for the PS3 is the Bluray player, making it a more useful general home entertainment device compared to an XBox360. They could keep the drive for this extra functionality since the drive itself is so much cheaper today than it was when the PS3 first came out. I fully expect Microsoft to use a BD drive as well now that the HD-DVD add-on boondoggle is behind them.
They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
Multiple billions?
Try about one.
t would be a world where everyone is better informed and not parroting the opinion of a talking head they saw last night.
I hate to sound like a Britannica douchbag, but can we have a link from a dictionary that can't have BS entries added to it easily?
Depends on where you work. Where i work, we take security seriously. You cant even walk in the door with another person. Your photo is verified against your face as you enter. We also have metal detectors on the doors, and the guards have real guns to stop you with, not just a radio to call for help.
Unless you worked in a government installation or a prison I have some doubts as to that last sentence. The guards may be carrying guns, but if they're private security personnel their usage was likely restricted to self-defense in the event of an intruder. I don't think assault with a deadly weapon would be considered a justifiable action to stop a trespasser as part of their job.
Yes, they buy up popular websites, make editorial and staffing changes to fit their monetizing goals, and then leech off the site's residual popularity until the talented people they still have and their audience get tired of the new sites and go elsewhere. There's enough Op-Ed blog bits about Tech Crunch post-AOL acquisition to show this.
A dying company playing vampire on young properties to support it's existence a little while longer. Soon they'll be another Lycos.
Secretly filming your roommate having gay sex is a little worse than just saying something random and mean on slashdot.
These aren't waters that haven't been tread before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier
Wouldn't a chilled work environment help prevent things from getting steamed and exposing some dangerous situations?
The system is rigged to prevent any change by average people and you know it. Money buys you access, access buys you laws. Period.
It is rigged. How do you think it got that way? Because people didn't care.
By "people" you mean the ones in power who didn't have the moral fiber to refuse the lobbyists' money to start with because they were elected to represent their constituents and not corporations. But they didn't care, it was just the entire basis of their jobs.
They would have more incentive to rush a product to market to make the 5-year deadline (and their shareholders would treat it as a deadline), and less incentive to maintain backward compatibility (since then people would have to be running the most recent version of Windows to run the current versions of popular software). It would be a handy way of ensuring future OS upgrades if the new version of Office was not compatible with the previous version Windows.
On the flipside, it probably would mean you couldn't expect security updates for releases beyond their copyright date. Why should they when you can legally use it without giving them money?
But... isn't the situation similar now? Once you've bought the product you've given them the money, and they wont be getting any more until you upgrade to a new version. Yet Microsoft continues to release patches for years after that, even after they've released that next version they would rather you upgrade to. With your thinking Microsoft should have stopped releasing XP patches as soon as Vista became available, or when they stopped selling XP licenses.
Looks like the Slashdot editors forgot to DVR their past accepted submissions...
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/05/11/0055211/dish-network-announces-prime-time-tv-with-no-ads
How about letting patent examiners determine the duration instead of keeping a fixed time for everything?
That would just lead to companies bribing patent examiners and the whole system would be corrupted.
You would have been able to use Windows legally without paying while it was still the "current" OS from Redmond.
The pirates do none of that, they take something, strip out the ads, and redistribute it without permission. People like it, because it's free, but that doesn't make it the same as what cable companies do.
Both cable companies and the TV pirates are doing the same thing, they are taking a product (the finished show), repackaging it, and distributing it to consumers.
The point of my post was that neither one is offering a "product", really. They're offering a service of access to the product. But for some reason it's okay for the cablecos to use that term incorrectly.
There are differences, yes. But they're still both products.
No they aren't, and that was my point. The parent post (to mine) complained about referring to the shows the pirates make available being referred to as a "product" since the pirates are not involved in the actual production of the content. I pointed out that cablecos refer to their wares as a product too they aren't doing anything in regards to production, either. For some reason it's okay to call cable TV a "product" when it's more legitimate legally. Its not a product, it's a service. You don't get a tangible item, and your relationship with the cableco is not a discrete event with the exchange of money for goods. It's a continuous providing of services for a recurring fee.
Personally I think cablecos (and banks for that matter) try to frame their services as products because to a consumer is implies a set of standards. Their offering is a set thing and you have little recourse if you do not agree with it. A service is more open to interpretation of quality and guarantees of quality by the consumer's standard. If I have a problem with a roofing job, as the person who paid for that service I can haggle and get things fixed with the contractor. But if I buy a cheap product and it fails on me. Unless it is covered by a manufactures warranty generally I am SOL. Better be wiser next time. See the difference in responsibility that's implied between the two?
As a long-time advocate of censorship in mass-distribution media, I have to remind everyone that this is also a form of censorship.
Which part is censorship?
The part where consumers get to opt-in to a service to skip ads, continue watching TV with ads as they have before, or continue to DVR it and make up their own minds then? Or the part where the owner of the content wants to sell advertising inserted with the product and not have a reseller editing the final item without their say-so?
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Choice is Censorship.
Cable companies are just distributors, not show producers, yet they're always referring to their pay-TV as a "product". How is that any different than pirates offering the same "product" as television without ads delivered over the Internet for free?
Consider that Hulu gives people access to shows when they want to watch them just like a DVR, except you can't skip the ads.. Yet we keep hearing about the television networks, the very people who own Hulu, and the very people who want to make money from advertising inserted into their content, doing things with the company that will drive people away and kill it.
Don't know if you work in the television advertising industry, but if so have you ever thought of asking your clients "Do you guys really have a clue?"
Be careful, if they knew that, there will be a push to make such features on devices illegal, or every time you press fast forward it inserts a 30 second advertisement!
Nah, they'll never think of doing that.
This is happening only when you watch shows the day after they air. A consumer can do the same thing right now with a DVR. Simply record all the shows and watch them the next night, fast forwarding through all the commercials. Dish is simply automating the process.
So when does he start at Yahoo?
Shouldn't that be isn't owned or controlled by the employer or company instead? An employee's personal computer (and I'm using personal here to mean one that belongs to the employee) shouldn't be accessed by the employer either.
Haven't you heard? Nobody keeps their stuff on their PCs anymore. They upload it to social networking sites, which they don't own, and don't keep backups. Then they fret about what they're going to do if Facebook ever goes away and how they'll get all their stuff back.
That's what happens when you have...
1. (Relatively) high unemployment.
2. A government that is pro-business and anti-employee rights for years and years.
3. Companies more and more feeling what an employee does on their personal time is their business because "it might reflect badly on the company".
This conclusion doesn't really seem to follow the premise. If the security issue is already-patched exploits being used for attacks, isn't the real issue people not keeping their Java up-to-date with security fixes. We're always quick to jump on Joe Sixpack for not keeping their Windows installation current on hotfixes, or the webserver team for not keeping PHP/Apache/etc behind, how is this any different?
You know what would make this a lot less of a problem? Silent automated updates The Java updater appears often enough to be a nuisance for some (me included), yet Java itself is obscure enough to the end user some don't know what it is, unlike Flash. "What? A new version of Java is available? What's that? Don't click 'install' dear, I've never heard of it, it might be spyware!" I'm sure this happens more often than Oracle thinks.