Your argument pretty much justifies the things that I have been saying for years. Most bands don't make hardly any money off CD sales in the first place, they make their money through live shows and merch. So, I never understood why all these big bands/performers complained so much about us downloading their songs...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Metallica have it's own record label? I can't find any good info on it, but I seem to remember something....
Anyway, it seems like a lot of the musicians who've made tried to create a public outcry about file sharing either run their own record label or are big enough names to have negotiated very favorable contracts so that they actually make money from CD sales. Otherwise, I've heard a number of musicians who've said something along the lines of, "Meh, we don't make money from sales anyway. We make our money from live shows."
What you say is true, but I think part of the issue is, if the music industry is having such a problem with piracy (meaning not enough people are willing to pay the price for their product), does that mean that they've not paid enough attention to this sort of idea? Have they spent years trying to pump the prices up, hoping increased profit per sale will more than make up for loss of sales, only to find that they're losing too many sales?
More to the point, this game of finding the most profitable price point, it's all well and good so long as you view your business as a purely mathematical entity. However, I think sometimes the perception of this practice can be a PR problem, which can hurt profitability of your business. If the public impression of your company is that it's willing to forsake half its customers because it believes it can get away with screwing over the other half by charging more than twice as much, it might be that you end up with no customers at all.
With TV/TiVO/downloads, the value isn't so much in the ability to "steal" as much as in the ability to time-shift. People are downloading freely available TV shows because they want to watch what they want to watch when they want to watch it, and insofar as companies have made it easy and cheap to accomplish this, people have shown a willingness to pay a nominal fee.
The truth is, file-sharing networks are a PITA. Your peers are frequently dropping off and interrupting the download, it's not clear what kind of quality you're getting or if the file is corrupt, etc. If some company gave you all the DRM-less access you wanted to a larger (or even as-large) library of songs as P2P networks, with easy search-features and recommendations, fast access, and you only had to pay a couple cents a song, a lot of people (me for one) would use it just to get around the annoyances of P2P.
Truth is, I already use iTMS, not so much for issues of legality (though partially for moral/ethical/legal concerns), but because the experience is far more pleasant that searching P2P networks.
You can buy a new Mac with Linux pre-installed from TerraSoft, but they aren't really any cheaper that way. I'm not sure it's really appropriate to talk about the "OS tax" with Apple the same way you talk about it with Microsoft, though. Macs are designed to run OSX, and OSX is designed to run on Macintoshes. In a certain sense, OSX really developed as an incentive to buy Apple's hardware, and it's a separate product in about the same sense that iLife is-- meaning it comes on a computer for free, but you can also buy it.
I don't know, I'm just saying that the talk about an OS tax, as usually applied to deals Microsoft has with OEMs, seems to not-quite apply here any more (or less) than it would apply to talking about the OS tax on a Palm device.
"Computer solitaire, for example-- what, do you need the cards flipping over to look cool? Tetris.... doesn't really need "physics"." Well, you suggest that Solitaire and Tetris needed 3D accelerators? With your logic not only PPU, but also GPU cannot thrive.
With my logic? I never said the PPU wouldn't thrive. I never said the PPU isn't worthwhile. I specifically said that both consumers and developers are generally focused on games that are getting more complex and realistic.
I merely commented that it's interesting that so many seem to believe this is the *only* direction game innovation can take, to keep making more and more FPS, RTS, and MMORPG, adding more complexity and realism with each generation. I'm not at all denying that it's the direction video games are moving.
I wasn't trying to bash the idea of pursuing more realistic physics, but advanced physics doesn't help every sort of game. Computer solitaire, for example-- what, do you need the cards flipping over to look cool? Tetris.... doesn't really need "physics".
I was attempting to point out that the idea of a real physics engine being the Holy Grail of gaming was based on the assumption that realism, complexity, and freedom are among the chief measures of the quality of a game. To that end, developers are pursuing realism, complexity, and freedom.
Of course, if you start off believing that "good games" rely on the games matching "our perception of reality," then you'll come to the idea that making games realistic is key. All I'm saying is, that's not the only place to start.
When everything that happens to be written becomes journalism, then the word journalism ceases to mean anything.
I don't think anyone is asking for "everything written" to be considered journalism. The question is, do we make the determination of an individual as being a "journalist" based on whether they're being paid by a large organization? If I do a bunch of research and write an article for the New York Times, I'm a journalist. If I do the same research and write the same article and post it on my blog, why aren't I a journalist then? Merely because I have corporate sponsorship?
Well what if my page is funded by advertisements, just like a newspaper? What if I have some well-defined editorial process? Really, on what basis is the determination that someone is a "journalist" made? I might be a very good writer crafting well thought-out and well researched articles which serve the public good by informing people of the facts surrounding relevant issues in the news, but because I'm not on Rupert Murdock's payroll (or some other billionaire), I still wouldn't be a "journalist"?
If that's true, then maybe the word "journalism" should cease to mean anything.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press
on
Is Blogging Journalism?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No.
The reason why some states give journalists the right to shield their confidential sources is to encourage whistle-blowing and reporting about government abuses, fraud, etc. Though even on that ground, the courts aren't always willing to accept it (see the Plame/Novak case).
Then why can't individuals be given the right to shield confidential sources in cases where the information is of a whistle-blowing nature, about government abuses, fraud, etc.? The Thinksecret case aside, if you're in a position to publicly disseminate information (as a blog-writer is) then why shouldn't you enjoy the same protections a journalist does? Merely on the grounds of who signs your pay-checks?
More seriously, it does seem that the video game industry has been moving more and more towards complete world simulations rather than "games with rules". Maybe that's an obvious statement, but part of the reason I say that is that it's not a necessary motion in the industry, but a consumer-driven one. In other words, developers could keep trying to innovate on the Super-Mario-type games, but gamers and developers seem more focused on creating more realistic first-person-shooter war simulations. (Not that I'm criticizing)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that a holodeck-like experience does seem to be what both gamers and developers have set up in their minds as the "holy grail" of video games. I think in the near future, we're going to see real innovation in physics engines to use ray-tracing-like lighting affects and real particle collisions instead of the pre-programmed tricks used today. I think for the transition we're in for, it probably would be appropriate to compare the transition to the sort of change we saw between the fake 3D of Duke Nukem 3D to the [more] real 3D of Quake.
However, what remains to be seen is whether those games will be more fun.
I'm convinced that every time some product is touted as the "iPod Killer" it's destined to be a flop.
In fact, whenever things are touted as an "[anything]-killer", it's probably going to fail. When people use the language of "[whatever]-killer", they're aready operating in a situation where:
A) They're stipulating that [whatever] is "king of the mountain" -and- B) [whatever] is somehow bad, and therefore needs "killing".
Now, very often, if [whatever] is, in fact, king of the mountain, it's because people like [whatever], which therefore opposes the idea that [whatever] is bad. At the very least, the idea that it needs "killing" seems to assume that it's entrenched as "king of the hill", and has some power to maintain and enforce it's position. So already, your "killer" is in a bad situation.
But further, whenever something is labeled a "killer", it always seems to be that they've merely reproduced the [whatever], perhaps with a new feature or two, perhaps a slightly lower price point. So basically, they're hoping to overthrow an entrenched product with negligible (and often arguable) "improvements".
When someone does actually produce a product that's just obviously superior, cheaper, or generally improved in non-negligible ways, people never ask "is this a [whatever]-killer?" They never say, "This company is planning on releasing a [whatever]-killer." People just say, "Oh, boy! I want one of those!" That's because significantly superior, improved, or innovative products tend to put themselves in a class of their own, and labeling it simply as a [whatever]-killer seems insufficient.
The keywords Google added to their title are limited in number and relevant to the actual page.
Isn't that the purpose of keywords? I've only looked at the pages casually, and I can't quite figure out what the complaint is, but if they've added some relevant keywords, what's the scandal?
Well, the possibility of having some sort of an absolute fixed frame of reference seems like it might be precluded by the theory of relativity-- or maybe it would be more proper to say that any measure of "fixedness" in an absolute sense becomes somewhat irrelevant.
Ah, so I'm not sure how to say it either. However, space does seem to have a strange sort of absolute component even though the measurements of a given distance is dependant on your frame of reference. Consider the fact that, knowing the measure of distance in frame of reference A, and knowing the motion of frame of reference B relative to frame of refernce A, it's possible to figure out mathematically what the length will be in frame B. In a certain sense, the space is a constant multiplied by a coefficient in proportion to it's relative motion.
This is by far the best answer in this thread. Perhaps it's the only good answer I've read. I've talked to a couple 19 year olds recently who've asked me what they should major in if they want to get a good job. Like there's a "right answer". Kids starting out always want to know how to get "a good job"-- just abstractly, "a good job". As in, you take specific classes, get "a good job", and live happily ever after.
If you're thinking about going back to school, just look into a lot of different subjects, and when you find something that you're really interested in, and the idea of taking classes on that subject is sort of exciting, take some classes in that.
If your real concern is that you're looking for is a token degree to give your resume a superficial bump, than it sounds like the job you're well-suited for is that of a PHB, in which case go ahead and get your MBA. You'll learn all the market-speak necessary to synergize best-business-practices in order to get the greatest possible ROI.
Otherwise, take some interesting classes and see where it leads you.
They seek to have total control over their platform and how the users use that platform. Sueing their fansites is exactly the behavior I would expect from Apple.
This paragraph might make sense if the "fansite" Apple was suing was a skinning site or something. But they're trying to protect upcoming product releases from being let out of the bag before they're ready.
I don't see how Apple's seeking "to have total control over their platform and how the users use that platform" anyway. Simply by making proprietary software? By not-directly supporting 3rd-party hacks to their OS (but also not trying to quash them)?
The whole idea of expecting the fossil record to be a continuum is absurd. It's like a line, in between any two points, there's a third point, no matter how close they are. In this way, no matter how closely related an ancestor we find, someone is always asking for a missing link between that animal and humans
So in that way of dealing with things, even when you find the 'missing link' (which has already occurred), people start asking you about the missing link between that 'missing link' and humans. You find the missing link between the 'missing link' and humans, and you'll be asked for a new missing link. By seeking the fossil record to be a continuum, only an infinite number of missing links will satisfactory as a 'missing link'.
I don't think it's like the USPS at all. First, the USPS is intended to be more of a public service the a profitable business (like public transportation or something). So I hope they won't be too worried about "loosing" money or developing alternative business models if their current one becomes obsolete. Second, until we invent teleporters, we'll still need to send things through the USPS, UPS, or FedEx. You know, "things", like actual physical things.
This idea goes beyond security. I've seen managers try to get workflow software to manage their team for them. Doesn't work. In fact, I can't think of a situation where a piece of technology, on its own, fixes a problem any more than a hammer "fixes a house". If I ever found myself in such a situation, I think I'd be worried.
You bring up a good point. MGM is essentially arguing that Grokster is more like the latter, than the former, since it's trivial for them to observe that the majority of their traffic is unauthorized.
It might be "trivial", but that doesn't answer for me whether it's their responsibility to monitor and regulate the network created by their product. The issue was more cut-and-dry when it came to Napster, and Napster ran a central server which listed the files on the client's computers. However, with current P2P networks, there is no central server, so all the developers are doing is providing the technology, and not even providing the location for the illegal activity. So maybe blaming Grokster for copyright violation is a bit like blaming the manufacturers of condoms rather than hotel owners for prostitution.
Unfortunately I have first-hand experience here; I got an education in the law a few years back when a user uploaded kiddie porn to one of my sites...
Ok, so that would be an exception though, not the rule. If that's the case, it's because they've made a special law due to the heinous nature of child pornography. I wasn't saying there is never a case where inaction can be prosecuted, but they are unusual and specific cases.
Not so ironic when you consider that, though it's in Microsoft's best interests to have MS Office for Mac, it's against their best insterests to have Office for the Mac be as good/stable/complete as its Windows counterpart.
Personally, though, Excel was never the Office X app that I had problems with. Entourage has always been the PITA for me.
Then, the article clearly goes on to say that this is a empty plastic shell, designed merely to inspire Intel's partners, not an example of any upcoming Intel product. I guess that doesn't sound as exciting and inflamatory, though.
Wow. Intel's pretty brilliant there. In order to inspire their partners to build something like the Mac Mini, they built.... an.... empty..... case...
huh? I think we've known for some time that we can make small empty cases.
Product recalls happen all the time. This is an unpleasant example, but if a toy manufacturer finds out that their toy might be unsafe, they'll pull it from the market. Or, a gun manufacturer might similarly pull their product or at least stop manufacturing it if they discover that the safety mechanism is faulty.
Yes, and when I product is recalled, it's usually because either:
the product in question is likely to cause injury (which is the case with your examples) -or-
the product is defective in some way which prevents it from working as advertised.
However, I've never heard of a company instituting a recall because their product is capable of being used for illegal purposes, and if companies were forced to do so, I believe you'd find that *no* products would be left on the market.
Not always. A real-world example is knowing that your business establishment is used for prostitution or other illegal activities, but not calling the cops. Or, to get a little more into the geek realm, knowing that somebody's uploading kiddie porn onto your host and not alerting the authorities.
IANAL, but I suspect that those charges are a little more complicated than your suggesting. For example, if I ran a hotel and surmised that, of course, some people staying there are probably involved in prostitution, but didn't actively try to figure out who and kick them out, I don't believe I'd be charged with anything. If I ran a matchmaking service or provided a special lounge for prostitutes and their johns to meet, then I'd be making a positive action, which would change things considerably.
Likewise, if I ran an anonymous FTP and I found occasional kiddie porn on my server (remember, posted anonymously) and erased it ASAP without contacting the authorities, I suspect I wouldn't be charged with anything. It wouldn't then be my legal responsibility to turn off all of my servers on the basis that they have been used in the past for illegal purposes and could be used that way again in the future. If I catered specifically to kiddie-porn viewers, or knowingly left it up on the server, I would, at that point, be knowingly publishing kiddie porn on the net, which is a positive action.
ok, in case you weren't kidding (because someone took me seriously enough to mod my post "flamebait"), you've just presented a logical refutation to a joke. Now, I hope, and I'm inclined to assume, that you're presenting a logical refutation to a joke as a joke, but I can't quite tell, and some people seem to be trying to turn this post into a pro/anti-gun argument of some kind, which is just weird.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Metallica have it's own record label? I can't find any good info on it, but I seem to remember something....
Anyway, it seems like a lot of the musicians who've made tried to create a public outcry about file sharing either run their own record label or are big enough names to have negotiated very favorable contracts so that they actually make money from CD sales. Otherwise, I've heard a number of musicians who've said something along the lines of, "Meh, we don't make money from sales anyway. We make our money from live shows."
More to the point, this game of finding the most profitable price point, it's all well and good so long as you view your business as a purely mathematical entity. However, I think sometimes the perception of this practice can be a PR problem, which can hurt profitability of your business. If the public impression of your company is that it's willing to forsake half its customers because it believes it can get away with screwing over the other half by charging more than twice as much, it might be that you end up with no customers at all.
The truth is, file-sharing networks are a PITA. Your peers are frequently dropping off and interrupting the download, it's not clear what kind of quality you're getting or if the file is corrupt, etc. If some company gave you all the DRM-less access you wanted to a larger (or even as-large) library of songs as P2P networks, with easy search-features and recommendations, fast access, and you only had to pay a couple cents a song, a lot of people (me for one) would use it just to get around the annoyances of P2P.
Truth is, I already use iTMS, not so much for issues of legality (though partially for moral/ethical/legal concerns), but because the experience is far more pleasant that searching P2P networks.
I don't know, I'm just saying that the talk about an OS tax, as usually applied to deals Microsoft has with OEMs, seems to not-quite apply here any more (or less) than it would apply to talking about the OS tax on a Palm device.
With my logic? I never said the PPU wouldn't thrive. I never said the PPU isn't worthwhile. I specifically said that both consumers and developers are generally focused on games that are getting more complex and realistic.
I merely commented that it's interesting that so many seem to believe this is the *only* direction game innovation can take, to keep making more and more FPS, RTS, and MMORPG, adding more complexity and realism with each generation. I'm not at all denying that it's the direction video games are moving.
I was attempting to point out that the idea of a real physics engine being the Holy Grail of gaming was based on the assumption that realism, complexity, and freedom are among the chief measures of the quality of a game. To that end, developers are pursuing realism, complexity, and freedom.
Of course, if you start off believing that "good games" rely on the games matching "our perception of reality," then you'll come to the idea that making games realistic is key. All I'm saying is, that's not the only place to start.
I don't think anyone is asking for "everything written" to be considered journalism. The question is, do we make the determination of an individual as being a "journalist" based on whether they're being paid by a large organization? If I do a bunch of research and write an article for the New York Times, I'm a journalist. If I do the same research and write the same article and post it on my blog, why aren't I a journalist then? Merely because I have corporate sponsorship?
Well what if my page is funded by advertisements, just like a newspaper? What if I have some well-defined editorial process? Really, on what basis is the determination that someone is a "journalist" made? I might be a very good writer crafting well thought-out and well researched articles which serve the public good by informing people of the facts surrounding relevant issues in the news, but because I'm not on Rupert Murdock's payroll (or some other billionaire), I still wouldn't be a "journalist"?
If that's true, then maybe the word "journalism" should cease to mean anything.
The reason why some states give journalists the right to shield their confidential sources is to encourage whistle-blowing and reporting about government abuses, fraud, etc. Though even on that ground, the courts aren't always willing to accept it (see the Plame/Novak case).
Then why can't individuals be given the right to shield confidential sources in cases where the information is of a whistle-blowing nature, about government abuses, fraud, etc.? The Thinksecret case aside, if you're in a position to publicly disseminate information (as a blog-writer is) then why shouldn't you enjoy the same protections a journalist does? Merely on the grounds of who signs your pay-checks?
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that a holodeck-like experience does seem to be what both gamers and developers have set up in their minds as the "holy grail" of video games. I think in the near future, we're going to see real innovation in physics engines to use ray-tracing-like lighting affects and real particle collisions instead of the pre-programmed tricks used today. I think for the transition we're in for, it probably would be appropriate to compare the transition to the sort of change we saw between the fake 3D of Duke Nukem 3D to the [more] real 3D of Quake.
However, what remains to be seen is whether those games will be more fun.
In fact, whenever things are touted as an "[anything]-killer", it's probably going to fail. When people use the language of "[whatever]-killer", they're aready operating in a situation where:
A) They're stipulating that [whatever] is "king of the mountain"
-and-
B) [whatever] is somehow bad, and therefore needs "killing".
Now, very often, if [whatever] is, in fact, king of the mountain, it's because people like [whatever], which therefore opposes the idea that [whatever] is bad. At the very least, the idea that it needs "killing" seems to assume that it's entrenched as "king of the hill", and has some power to maintain and enforce it's position. So already, your "killer" is in a bad situation.
But further, whenever something is labeled a "killer", it always seems to be that they've merely reproduced the [whatever], perhaps with a new feature or two, perhaps a slightly lower price point. So basically, they're hoping to overthrow an entrenched product with negligible (and often arguable) "improvements".
When someone does actually produce a product that's just obviously superior, cheaper, or generally improved in non-negligible ways, people never ask "is this a [whatever]-killer?" They never say, "This company is planning on releasing a [whatever]-killer." People just say, "Oh, boy! I want one of those!" That's because significantly superior, improved, or innovative products tend to put themselves in a class of their own, and labeling it simply as a [whatever]-killer seems insufficient.
Isn't that the purpose of keywords? I've only looked at the pages casually, and I can't quite figure out what the complaint is, but if they've added some relevant keywords, what's the scandal?
Ah, so I'm not sure how to say it either. However, space does seem to have a strange sort of absolute component even though the measurements of a given distance is dependant on your frame of reference. Consider the fact that, knowing the measure of distance in frame of reference A, and knowing the motion of frame of reference B relative to frame of refernce A, it's possible to figure out mathematically what the length will be in frame B. In a certain sense, the space is a constant multiplied by a coefficient in proportion to it's relative motion.
If you're thinking about going back to school, just look into a lot of different subjects, and when you find something that you're really interested in, and the idea of taking classes on that subject is sort of exciting, take some classes in that.
If your real concern is that you're looking for is a token degree to give your resume a superficial bump, than it sounds like the job you're well-suited for is that of a PHB, in which case go ahead and get your MBA. You'll learn all the market-speak necessary to synergize best-business-practices in order to get the greatest possible ROI.
Otherwise, take some interesting classes and see where it leads you.
This paragraph might make sense if the "fansite" Apple was suing was a skinning site or something. But they're trying to protect upcoming product releases from being let out of the bag before they're ready.
I don't see how Apple's seeking "to have total control over their platform and how the users use that platform" anyway. Simply by making proprietary software? By not-directly supporting 3rd-party hacks to their OS (but also not trying to quash them)?
So in that way of dealing with things, even when you find the 'missing link' (which has already occurred), people start asking you about the missing link between that 'missing link' and humans. You find the missing link between the 'missing link' and humans, and you'll be asked for a new missing link. By seeking the fossil record to be a continuum, only an infinite number of missing links will satisfactory as a 'missing link'.
I don't think it's like the USPS at all. First, the USPS is intended to be more of a public service the a profitable business (like public transportation or something). So I hope they won't be too worried about "loosing" money or developing alternative business models if their current one becomes obsolete. Second, until we invent teleporters, we'll still need to send things through the USPS, UPS, or FedEx. You know, "things", like actual physical things.
This idea goes beyond security. I've seen managers try to get workflow software to manage their team for them. Doesn't work. In fact, I can't think of a situation where a piece of technology, on its own, fixes a problem any more than a hammer "fixes a house". If I ever found myself in such a situation, I think I'd be worried.
It might be "trivial", but that doesn't answer for me whether it's their responsibility to monitor and regulate the network created by their product. The issue was more cut-and-dry when it came to Napster, and Napster ran a central server which listed the files on the client's computers. However, with current P2P networks, there is no central server, so all the developers are doing is providing the technology, and not even providing the location for the illegal activity. So maybe blaming Grokster for copyright violation is a bit like blaming the manufacturers of condoms rather than hotel owners for prostitution. Unfortunately I have first-hand experience here; I got an education in the law a few years back when a user uploaded kiddie porn to one of my sites...
Ok, so that would be an exception though, not the rule. If that's the case, it's because they've made a special law due to the heinous nature of child pornography. I wasn't saying there is never a case where inaction can be prosecuted, but they are unusual and specific cases.
Personally, though, Excel was never the Office X app that I had problems with. Entourage has always been the PITA for me.
Wow. Intel's pretty brilliant there. In order to inspire their partners to build something like the Mac Mini, they built.... an.... empty..... case...
huh? I think we've known for some time that we can make small empty cases.
Nope. He shot me yesterday.
I thought the "murdering poor, innocent walnuts" would give it away for sure.
Yes, and when I product is recalled, it's usually because either:
- the product in question is likely to cause injury (which is the case with your examples) -or-
- the product is defective in some way which prevents it from working as advertised.
However, I've never heard of a company instituting a recall because their product is capable of being used for illegal purposes, and if companies were forced to do so, I believe you'd find that *no* products would be left on the market.Not always. A real-world example is knowing that your business establishment is used for prostitution or other illegal activities, but not calling the cops. Or, to get a little more into the geek realm, knowing that somebody's uploading kiddie porn onto your host and not alerting the authorities.
IANAL, but I suspect that those charges are a little more complicated than your suggesting. For example, if I ran a hotel and surmised that, of course, some people staying there are probably involved in prostitution, but didn't actively try to figure out who and kick them out, I don't believe I'd be charged with anything. If I ran a matchmaking service or provided a special lounge for prostitutes and their johns to meet, then I'd be making a positive action, which would change things considerably.
Likewise, if I ran an anonymous FTP and I found occasional kiddie porn on my server (remember, posted anonymously) and erased it ASAP without contacting the authorities, I suspect I wouldn't be charged with anything. It wouldn't then be my legal responsibility to turn off all of my servers on the basis that they have been used in the past for illegal purposes and could be used that way again in the future. If I catered specifically to kiddie-porn viewers, or knowingly left it up on the server, I would, at that point, be knowingly publishing kiddie porn on the net, which is a positive action.
ok, in case you weren't kidding (because someone took me seriously enough to mod my post "flamebait"), you've just presented a logical refutation to a joke. Now, I hope, and I'm inclined to assume, that you're presenting a logical refutation to a joke as a joke, but I can't quite tell, and some people seem to be trying to turn this post into a pro/anti-gun argument of some kind, which is just weird.
Dude, I hope you're kidding.