My biggest concern (and please don't bash me for this) is not about Hotmail users getting all their email flagged as spam. The problem I can see with this is if Microsoft strongarms other servers into using the SenderID. It's almost like the way that the majority of websites have CSS hacks and workarounds for a broken browser(IE) that still won't be fixed in the next version. If enough people are using the proprietary garbage, then people will others will be forced to support it.
If they can muscle thier SenderID onto enough servers out there than less email becomes spam, then SenderID is free to be a gateway for other proprietary garbage that MS may decided to bundle with it. Microsoft has had its overwhelming failures at times, but it also has a record of 'forcing' their way onto enough of the market to make an impact for better or worse. That's just my take on it; it's not what it will do, but what it will allow to happen in the future (should it catch on)
I was refering to the idea that if the UN could ever get a hold of the root servers for themselves, they would probably find a reason to complain about what country they're located in. (i.e. relocate them to promote some demented sense of political equality for the internet)
Even with the possibility of giving up the root servers to the UN, then countries could start a fight over which country hosts the physical location for the servers.
I agree completely on a personal level with the quality of Google's little magic shop of products, but some companies are less concerned about satellite imagery. There are plenty of companies that appear on Google Ads and also spend an incredible amount of time and money (to third parties or employees) to find a way to reach that highly prized Google PR of 8 or 9 even, because nobody completely understands how it works. All they know is that they want to be the number one result on the number one search engine.
While this money spent on SEO isn't going to Google, it certainly drives a good amount of other business. I think the innovation drives Google, but it's ambiguity is what drives several other markets, and that impact shouldn't be ignored when some parts of the internet business still haven't recovered fully from the.bomb
Not directly, but several countries seem to base a lot of their new Intellectual Property laws and court rulings using the American cases (where we've pursued it the most) as a precedent.
Whether for or against what America decides as 'right' in the IP wars, we've been (most likely) the biggest fighter in the world for these kinds of cases. We have set a reference point in a way for the War of Copyright.
Chances are, they ruled based upon the outcome of the Grokster case (and what they're trying to get Bram Cohen with):
Intent
Cases for p2p were won originally because they only had the ability to allow users to infringe upon copyrights, but the programs were not themselves, infringing. What got Grokster is that the intent behind the entire program was to trade infringing material. And that's how they have ruled this link site.
What's stupid is that even the ISP is being punished for it. Like everyone else has pointed out already, next in line could be the company that pays the 'infringing party' for the work they do for a living, which is used, in turn, to commit a crime.
However, the fact that the website owner got sued [for not having a narc label on his banner;) ] for his portal page is perfectly in line with the Grokster ruling though (whether it's right or not) in that he provided a set of links to music piracy sites with the intent of helping others infringe upon copyrighted works.
But on a similar note, how many links in the chain can be penalized for this kind of garbage? I can't wait until they try to sue the parents of the 'infringing parties' for providing the education to build/host/pay for music pirating portals.
That's because in the NES and SNES days, console gaming wasn't the industry that it is now. People have multiple vendors to choose from (even PC) and the wealth of titles available for each is enormous when put together.
Back then, it was a little bit easier to impress when there wasn't as much selection for consoles in the US or there was a niche yet to be filled by American game developers.
Now there is a plethora of choice in the gaming market, and most people that have the option to get a system aren't left in the dark about what's out there. It's possible that Microsoft could eventually gain a small footing in Japan in time, but the current trends don't seem to have a demand for what they offer.
And while this story isn't an direct dupe (that I'm aware of, don't bother correcting if I'm wrong), I had seen plenty of articles about the switch when it was still a shock that said even mentioned that Apple was supposedly getting shafted on the heirarchy due to IBM giving more attention to game console CPU development.
Just a glance at the games available for the Xbox and another look at some of the most popular games and genres in Japan should shed some light on this big mystery that Microsoft can't figure out.
While not all, most of the Xbox games are pretty geared towards American pop-gaming trends, and you can't expect to market to another country when you don't speak their language (figuratively, of course). You have to know your audience.
While I love Tycho's article about video games becoming mainstream, I wanted to clarify my points on the issue.
It was a dark day for me, when in junior high or high school, I was talking with my fellow outcasts (and I'm not kidding, we were geeks/nerds/freaks/whatever at the school) about FFVII and some average looking girl whose skin showed signs a blush of health said "Yeah I play that game. It's awesome, but I hate how you have to walk around and talk to people"
Clouds gathered in the sky that day. A girl actually talked to us that wasn't one of us already, and then we find out that the masses have caught wind of our hidden trove of joy.
And they misunderstood it in every way.
Since that day of reckoning, I drew further into a realm of actual RPGs (and not just Diablo clones (though some can be quite fun)) and strategy. This makes it easy to pick out the average gamer from the those of us that would have been the only gamers years ago because I tell them PC is my favorite system. If they reply with nothing more than an inquisitive look, then I know where their loyalties lie.
In the real world, it's really not that much different for me for the fact that I don't play most of the mainstream games. About the most mainstream thing I have is Guild Wars and I don't even own a console. While I make no claim of being uber gamer or geek supreme, my way of telling the pop-gamers from not is usually a matter of genre. But that's only because of my preference.
Everyone has become more digital in some way in the last decade whether geek or not. It's weird to talk with people about a game when we have nothing else in common sometimes, but I think we'll just have to deal with losing some of our safe haven.
I have this feeling that the word terrorist is going to be a revisit on the dreaded 'communist' of yore actually. It's an entirely social tool to grant the recipient with stigma.
But to the topic at hand, I think something that also gives the BBC the objectivity to give back and care not for story bias as much as profit news networks is they know that the BBC is viewed/read/visited from all over the world. They've really extended beyond just the country in terms of their audience and it's kind of hard to not do something good with that when you're not in it for money.
And the point of games is to get away from reality. In the article's point on war 'simulations' not being at all like military simulators (and they aren't, I've used both), it fails to mention that even a game that's based on reality doesn't have to be unbiased facts of reality. Otherwise, I'd be leaving my job to play someone else's. How would it look on the other side of the mirror?
I can just see the new 'real simulation games' in the military. As some guys come back to their barracks from the field
"Hey guys, Have you checked out the new previews for Cubicle Explorer? I can't wait for that game to come out."
Limitations of perception and emotion should be considered too:
People don't want to simulate absolute reality or else it woulnd't be entertaining. Hence why 'Reality TV' couldn't be further from realism and so many people watch it.
Without a slant or message, there's no emotional element for the player to latch onto and use as a reference point on what 'free range' choices to make in the game (i.e. whether they want to save the world or destroy it for example). Why escape your boring job/homework/whatever just to go to boot camp?
If you would call it a problem at all is that you can't really have people write a script for just about anything that is truly unbiased. Most everybody is incapable of completely detaching themselves from something to the point of having no bias when creating it.
Besides, the example of a video game having bias despite free choice is sort of a backwards one. Without some slant to it, there wouldn't be any real esacape element to playing the game. Do players want to be presented with a mulitude of choices from different characters who seem completely abivalent as to the outcome? Bias (while being unhealthy in gargantuan quantities) is what provides flavor in a lot of these simulation games. Otherwise, with no bias, you would have an online chatroom because the majority of people wouldn't know what do to with the simulation in question.
It really depends on what you're trying to simulate.
What's worse is that under this kind of precedent (should it hypothetically pass), crimes would no longer be judged upon the horific nature and malicious intent, but rather how much damage you did.
It's funny that they tell us we're desensitized to violence because of music and games and yet the corporations have put a price tag on human life.
Does anybody else see what's so humorous about this article and the severity it entails?
Many people in technology talk about the large corporations' evil machinations and how they should be flogged/maimed/burned/whatever. And while sometimes in jest, I think we all lose a little bit of perspective when our (hobby|profession) that we love is be stomped upon by some antipathetic megacorp.
But now the 'real professional' in the field is the one that has lost perspective. Since when has any monetary loss resulted in execution? Not recently.
For all the times someone in/. has felt the need to remind another user to keep some perspective on the issue instead of getting so hyped about it, I think/. should collectively inform this NY Times writer to (let's all say it together!):
College was already a headache having to listen to people using their brand new cellphones with the latest song from Evanessence(I know I probably hacked the name) as a ringtone alarm clock cranked up to max volume. I hear people still using downloaded songs turned all the way up on their phones that sound like shit with the current quality.
I have very little hope that video is going to be anything other than the visual equivalent thereof. But at least with this, people can keep it to themselves until they bump into me on the bus.
You're probably right about the MIPS in performance (though I wouldn't know), I don't think this article is attempting to pull a "OMFG WTF! Why did you abandon this l337 chip?" The author is simply trying to state that it really isn't as bad as people say (whether that's proven or not, I am in no position to say).
So while CPU X can beat the crap out of the Itanium, I don't think the author is trying to come out as the king of all CPUs now and forever here.
Though I do think it's kind of funny that, given I have seen the original marketing for the chip, this article makes the Itanium look like somebody standing on your porch with a stack of benchmark scores and a highlighter asking for a cookie.
...the pointy haired boss from Dilbert is not just a myth. Without these words, that I find to be a detestable sore upon my tounge for each utterance, there are managers that would say "Ooh, that doesn't sound so good... why don't you uhh... perk it up a little bit....yeah."
Basically we need to find the Lumbergh gene in the human race and erradicate it so we can stop making the stupid bosses happy, then we can dispose of these garbage words.
Personally I don't think this shift has anything to do with hardware in the long run. The hardware change is a means to an end. Unless we want to witness the death of a different computer, then I think Apple will always be the trendy computer with a trendy price tag, but what I think the processor shift is about is software:
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it be easier to write software for a Mac there was only the OS difference to grapple with and not a different CPU architecture to struggle against also? I think one of the the things that holds a lot of people back from embracing a mac (whether it's truly better or not) is "I would miss my favorite [fill in blank] program/game/anything"
I think if it can be simpler to write software for them, then more companies may actually be provoked into doing so, thus giving the mac even more edge in the desktop world. I'm not going to discredit the iPod, but the desktop boost (if it works correctly) can help Apple achieve more overall electronic success than just portable technology or desktop.
I believe that the author is thinking in the material world too much. It's not just iPod and portability that's been helping Apple lately, it the customization. Having your own custom playlists to carry with you where you go, your own set of widgets on the desktop and your own group of rss feeds. All of this housed in a smooth, sleek package. It's not just the hardware that propels Apple lately, has anyone ever told this author about something called Tiger?
You're absolutely right in most respects; after all, americans can now afford a lexus with greater ease than their daily medication. However, there are a lot of people that cry conspiracy (I'm not claiming that you're one of them) that government X is keeping all the cures from people for the same statement you have made. Then again, with some of the bleeding edge and virtually restriction-free medical reasearch centers being built in places like Singapore and other countries than haven't been as tainted in the medical world, I find it hard to believe that not even 1 country out of almost 200 in the world has yet to distribute one of the many cures for AIDS that conspiracy buffs talk about.
I think some have come further than others to treating it and there is even one cure for AIDS that I can think of off the top of my head, but it also has a 50% mortality rate. I think that may be another large chunk of the 'cures' out there: things still far from properly tested or safe.
Considering that I've seen a good number of articles about NASA trying to quell fears about launch activity after the last major crash, I would would be inclined to think that half of thier decision is based on safety and half on PR (based upon your geographic information). There's always the chance for the unexpected to happen, and people know that. As long as some are still skeptical about another trip, I don't NASA wants to take any chances or 'scare the children' while their at it.
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest concern (and please don't bash me for this) is not about Hotmail users getting all their email flagged as spam. The problem I can see with this is if Microsoft strongarms other servers into using the SenderID. It's almost like the way that the majority of websites have CSS hacks and workarounds for a broken browser(IE) that still won't be fixed in the next version. If enough people are using the proprietary garbage, then people will others will be forced to support it.
If they can muscle thier SenderID onto enough servers out there than less email becomes spam, then SenderID is free to be a gateway for other proprietary garbage that MS may decided to bundle with it. Microsoft has had its overwhelming failures at times, but it also has a record of 'forcing' their way onto enough of the market to make an impact for better or worse. That's just my take on it; it's not what it will do, but what it will allow to happen in the future (should it catch on)
I was refering to the idea that if the UN could ever get a hold of the root servers for themselves, they would probably find a reason to complain about what country they're located in. (i.e. relocate them to promote some demented sense of political equality for the internet)
Even with the possibility of giving up the root servers to the UN, then countries could start a fight over which country hosts the physical location for the servers.
I agree completely on a personal level with the quality of Google's little magic shop of products, but some companies are less concerned about satellite imagery. There are plenty of companies that appear on Google Ads and also spend an incredible amount of time and money (to third parties or employees) to find a way to reach that highly prized Google PR of 8 or 9 even, because nobody completely understands how it works. All they know is that they want to be the number one result on the number one search engine.
.bomb
While this money spent on SEO isn't going to Google, it certainly drives a good amount of other business. I think the innovation drives Google, but it's ambiguity is what drives several other markets, and that impact shouldn't be ignored when some parts of the internet business still haven't recovered fully from the
Not directly, but several countries seem to base a lot of their new Intellectual Property laws and court rulings using the American cases (where we've pursued it the most) as a precedent.
Whether for or against what America decides as 'right' in the IP wars, we've been (most likely) the biggest fighter in the world for these kinds of cases. We have set a reference point in a way for the War of Copyright.
Chances are, they ruled based upon the outcome of the Grokster case (and what they're trying to get Bram Cohen with):
;) ] for his portal page is perfectly in line with the Grokster ruling though (whether it's right or not) in that he provided a set of links to music piracy sites with the intent of helping others infringe upon copyrighted works.
Intent
Cases for p2p were won originally because they only had the ability to allow users to infringe upon copyrights, but the programs were not themselves, infringing. What got Grokster is that the intent behind the entire program was to trade infringing material. And that's how they have ruled this link site.
What's stupid is that even the ISP is being punished for it. Like everyone else has pointed out already, next in line could be the company that pays the 'infringing party' for the work they do for a living, which is used, in turn, to commit a crime.
However, the fact that the website owner got sued [for not having a narc label on his banner
But on a similar note, how many links in the chain can be penalized for this kind of garbage? I can't wait until they try to sue the parents of the 'infringing parties' for providing the education to build/host/pay for music pirating portals.
That's because in the NES and SNES days, console gaming wasn't the industry that it is now. People have multiple vendors to choose from (even PC) and the wealth of titles available for each is enormous when put together.
Back then, it was a little bit easier to impress when there wasn't as much selection for consoles in the US or there was a niche yet to be filled by American game developers.
Now there is a plethora of choice in the gaming market, and most people that have the option to get a system aren't left in the dark about what's out there. It's possible that Microsoft could eventually gain a small footing in Japan in time, but the current trends don't seem to have a demand for what they offer.
And while this story isn't an direct dupe (that I'm aware of, don't bother correcting if I'm wrong), I had seen plenty of articles about the switch when it was still a shock that said even mentioned that Apple was supposedly getting shafted on the heirarchy due to IBM giving more attention to game console CPU development.
Just a glance at the games available for the Xbox and another look at some of the most popular games and genres in Japan should shed some light on this big mystery that Microsoft can't figure out.
While not all, most of the Xbox games are pretty geared towards American pop-gaming trends, and you can't expect to market to another country when you don't speak their language (figuratively, of course). You have to know your audience.
Not only that, but I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro. How do I install SATA drivers without a floppy?
I hate feeling like technology articles are trying to force me to get Windows XP.
Long live my floppy drive! It's been in 4 different cases for this very reason.
While I love Tycho's article about video games becoming mainstream, I wanted to clarify my points on the issue.
It was a dark day for me, when in junior high or high school, I was talking with my fellow outcasts (and I'm not kidding, we were geeks/nerds/freaks/whatever at the school) about FFVII and some average looking girl whose skin showed signs a blush of health said "Yeah I play that game. It's awesome, but I hate how you have to walk around and talk to people"
Clouds gathered in the sky that day. A girl actually talked to us that wasn't one of us already, and then we find out that the masses have caught wind of our hidden trove of joy.
And they misunderstood it in every way.
Since that day of reckoning, I drew further into a realm of actual RPGs (and not just Diablo clones (though some can be quite fun)) and strategy. This makes it easy to pick out the average gamer from the those of us that would have been the only gamers years ago because I tell them PC is my favorite system. If they reply with nothing more than an inquisitive look, then I know where their loyalties lie.
In the real world, it's really not that much different for me for the fact that I don't play most of the mainstream games. About the most mainstream thing I have is Guild Wars and I don't even own a console. While I make no claim of being uber gamer or geek supreme, my way of telling the pop-gamers from not is usually a matter of genre. But that's only because of my preference.
Everyone has become more digital in some way in the last decade whether geek or not. It's weird to talk with people about a game when we have nothing else in common sometimes, but I think we'll just have to deal with losing some of our safe haven.
I have this feeling that the word terrorist is going to be a revisit on the dreaded 'communist' of yore actually. It's an entirely social tool to grant the recipient with stigma. But to the topic at hand, I think something that also gives the BBC the objectivity to give back and care not for story bias as much as profit news networks is they know that the BBC is viewed/read/visited from all over the world. They've really extended beyond just the country in terms of their audience and it's kind of hard to not do something good with that when you're not in it for money.
And the point of games is to get away from reality. In the article's point on war 'simulations' not being at all like military simulators (and they aren't, I've used both), it fails to mention that even a game that's based on reality doesn't have to be unbiased facts of reality. Otherwise, I'd be leaving my job to play someone else's. How would it look on the other side of the mirror?
I can just see the new 'real simulation games' in the military. As some guys come back to their barracks from the field
"Hey guys, Have you checked out the new previews for Cubicle Explorer? I can't wait for that game to come out."
Limitations of perception and emotion should be considered too:
People don't want to simulate absolute reality or else it woulnd't be entertaining. Hence why 'Reality TV' couldn't be further from realism and so many people watch it.
Without a slant or message, there's no emotional element for the player to latch onto and use as a reference point on what 'free range' choices to make in the game (i.e. whether they want to save the world or destroy it for example). Why escape your boring job/homework/whatever just to go to boot camp?
If you would call it a problem at all is that you can't really have people write a script for just about anything that is truly unbiased. Most everybody is incapable of completely detaching themselves from something to the point of having no bias when creating it.
Besides, the example of a video game having bias despite free choice is sort of a backwards one. Without some slant to it, there wouldn't be any real esacape element to playing the game. Do players want to be presented with a mulitude of choices from different characters who seem completely abivalent as to the outcome? Bias (while being unhealthy in gargantuan quantities) is what provides flavor in a lot of these simulation games. Otherwise, with no bias, you would have an online chatroom because the majority of people wouldn't know what do to with the simulation in question.
It really depends on what you're trying to simulate.
What's worse is that under this kind of precedent (should it hypothetically pass), crimes would no longer be judged upon the horific nature and malicious intent, but rather how much damage you did.
It's funny that they tell us we're desensitized to violence because of music and games and yet the corporations have put a price tag on human life.
Does anybody else see what's so humorous about this article and the severity it entails?
/. has felt the need to remind another user to keep some perspective on the issue instead of getting so hyped about it, I think /. should collectively inform this NY Times writer to (let's all say it together!):
Many people in technology talk about the large corporations' evil machinations and how they should be flogged/maimed/burned/whatever. And while sometimes in jest, I think we all lose a little bit of perspective when our (hobby|profession) that we love is be stomped upon by some antipathetic megacorp.
But now the 'real professional' in the field is the one that has lost perspective. Since when has any monetary loss resulted in execution? Not recently.
For all the times someone in
Get some perspective.
College was already a headache having to listen to people using their brand new cellphones with the latest song from Evanessence(I know I probably hacked the name) as a ringtone alarm clock cranked up to max volume. I hear people still using downloaded songs turned all the way up on their phones that sound like shit with the current quality.
I have very little hope that video is going to be anything other than the visual equivalent thereof. But at least with this, people can keep it to themselves until they bump into me on the bus.
You're probably right about the MIPS in performance (though I wouldn't know), I don't think this article is attempting to pull a "OMFG WTF! Why did you abandon this l337 chip?" The author is simply trying to state that it really isn't as bad as people say (whether that's proven or not, I am in no position to say).
So while CPU X can beat the crap out of the Itanium, I don't think the author is trying to come out as the king of all CPUs now and forever here.
Though I do think it's kind of funny that, given I have seen the original marketing for the chip, this article makes the Itanium look like somebody standing on your porch with a stack of benchmark scores and a highlighter asking for a cookie.
"See? I was number 7..."
...the pointy haired boss from Dilbert is not just a myth. Without these words, that I find to be a detestable sore upon my tounge for each utterance, there are managers that would say "Ooh, that doesn't sound so good... why don't you uhh... perk it up a little bit....yeah." Basically we need to find the Lumbergh gene in the human race and erradicate it so we can stop making the stupid bosses happy, then we can dispose of these garbage words.
Personally I don't think this shift has anything to do with hardware in the long run. The hardware change is a means to an end. Unless we want to witness the death of a different computer, then I think Apple will always be the trendy computer with a trendy price tag, but what I think the processor shift is about is software: Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it be easier to write software for a Mac there was only the OS difference to grapple with and not a different CPU architecture to struggle against also? I think one of the the things that holds a lot of people back from embracing a mac (whether it's truly better or not) is "I would miss my favorite [fill in blank] program/game/anything" I think if it can be simpler to write software for them, then more companies may actually be provoked into doing so, thus giving the mac even more edge in the desktop world. I'm not going to discredit the iPod, but the desktop boost (if it works correctly) can help Apple achieve more overall electronic success than just portable technology or desktop.
I believe that the author is thinking in the material world too much. It's not just iPod and portability that's been helping Apple lately, it the customization. Having your own custom playlists to carry with you where you go, your own set of widgets on the desktop and your own group of rss feeds. All of this housed in a smooth, sleek package. It's not just the hardware that propels Apple lately, has anyone ever told this author about something called Tiger?
You're absolutely right in most respects; after all, americans can now afford a lexus with greater ease than their daily medication. However, there are a lot of people that cry conspiracy (I'm not claiming that you're one of them) that government X is keeping all the cures from people for the same statement you have made. Then again, with some of the bleeding edge and virtually restriction-free medical reasearch centers being built in places like Singapore and other countries than haven't been as tainted in the medical world, I find it hard to believe that not even 1 country out of almost 200 in the world has yet to distribute one of the many cures for AIDS that conspiracy buffs talk about.
I think some have come further than others to treating it and there is even one cure for AIDS that I can think of off the top of my head, but it also has a 50% mortality rate. I think that may be another large chunk of the 'cures' out there: things still far from properly tested or safe.
Considering that I've seen a good number of articles about NASA trying to quell fears about launch activity after the last major crash, I would would be inclined to think that half of thier decision is based on safety and half on PR (based upon your geographic information). There's always the chance for the unexpected to happen, and people know that. As long as some are still skeptical about another trip, I don't NASA wants to take any chances or 'scare the children' while their at it.