how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?
So, you're asking why Wikileaks, an organization which leaks secrets and publicly unavailable documents, doesn't cover the publicly available and frequent reports of corruption in India?
My point was that impressions and prejudices, how much ever they may be regarded as deserved, tend to cause problems. It was the impression, the 'knee-jerk reaction' as the reporter himself put it, which caused this little incident, and the OP was defending it, at least partially, by saying China never gets the benefit of the doubt.
There are those who criticize the US government for taking actions in Iraq without the full facts, and yet they continue to hold similar prejudices about other countries.
Let's put that idea in another context, shall we? Let's try before the Mess 'o potamia:
Dictatorships are not high on the chart of things that get the benefit of the doubt. Even if Saddam did not attempt to buy WMDs, we know from hard evidence that he has had WMDs in the past. We know from hard facts that the he has tried repeatedly to get more and we do know from hard evidence that he has tried to hide his activities.
So while I'll give you that the US government should really do some fact checking before picking up the latest intelligence chatter and reporting it as real news... It's not that far fetched that the Iraqi government would be up to some of their pretty old, tried, and true techniques of obtaining weapons not explicitly approved for their consumption.
So, pundit, how do you stop that darn relative from copying a low-quality product innovated by a second-class human being? I would have thought that the Hindu self-defeatism would be enough
My point exactly. If you are hungry, you get the former; if you're thirsty, you get the latter. They're both still in the food business, but target different markets. In Harrison's mind, the DS and the PSP are in the same business (handheld console business) but are targetting different spheres.
Whether or not this is the case is a different matter. What matters is that this is how he sees it and how Sony's plan follows this idea. If Sony sees the DS as a bag of chips, it is irrelevant to Sony as it is targetting a different sphere.
Truly, there could be people who wish to buy one of them. To them, the PSP is in direct competition with the DS. But what matters here, and this is where Slashdot has it wrong, is that Sony and Harrison don't see it that way, and Harrison is speaking on behalf of himself. He is not speaking for the customer.
Sony believes its going after one market, and it believes Nintendo is going after another. They base their marketing on that.
The fact that you can buy both and that in your mind they are competing for your money means absolutely nothing to either company's marketing scheme.
Put it another way: if you had $400, you could buy 400 bags of chips or 400 cans of soda. But Coke and Doritos are not in competition with each other; they target different markets. Get it?
But I fear that it wont have a lasting impact beyond that of a gimmick
By that he means the touch-screen idea. What I understood of that paragraph is simply that if the DS is only going to market its touch-screen and does not have any other technical merits, its success will be based on that gimmick.
Indeed. He believes that only kids will like the DS and that Sony is targetting an older market with the PSP. What the deuce is wrong with that? Is targetting children for a gaming platform demeaning somehow?
Harrison merely said that the DS' touch-screen was a gimmick, not that the DS itself was a gimmick.
He also said that the DS was not part of Sony's planning as well as it shouldn't be. He believes they're targetting different markets, so why should it?
Way too much irrelevant Sony hatred. Sony does stupid things, but not everything they do is stupid.
Guns don't kill people. People who make guns kill people.
Would this mean that those who aided and abetted a gun manufacturer to make the gun, via the sale of tools and so on, can be liable as accomplices too?
I agree, theft does have an impact on people's lives. But this is not theft. I guess you skipped out on that rationalization.
Yes, people can go without many products. Of course, the money issue only crops up if the product is available legally in that market. What if it isn't?
I already said that many people would pay for it if the price was reasonable. I'd like to see you charge an exorbitant price for your software, with or without software protection, and see how your sales fare. That is a demand/supply issue, and not a piracy issue.
Will the company really adjust prices? Has Microsoft, whose software is amongst the most pirated, adjusted its prices? Nope. It only offers cheaper, lower-quality versions of its software for those markets. Has Hollywood lowered its price? No. Going to a movie costs an arm and a foot, and some extra if you want popcorn.
I'm not saying people are entitled to piracy because companies charge too much. Rather what I meant was that if companies really want to see an end to piracy, charge less, making their products more effective alternatives to pirated products.
Well looks like the farmer is quite the idiot, then. All he has to do is plant weeds and the like on the outer fringe and the problem is solved.
But here's where your analogy fails. One, by taking crops to his/her heart's desire, the vagrant denied both the farmer and others from it. That is stealing. However, 'pirates' do no deny others from partaking in media they are 'pirating'. That's the difference.
The second point is that there is no evidence that the 'pirate' would consume the product if (s)he couldn't get a 'pirated' version. The logic is that a person may watch something because it is free (via 'piracy'), so (s)he has nothing to lose, except leisure time. If (s)he were to buy or consume the product legally, the cost might exceed the benefits, for him/her, and thus the 'pirate' may not consume the said product.
Thirdly, a lot of 'pirates' are from overseas where they have no access to that product (especially in the case of TV). I'm sure many 'pirates' would pay for it if content providers actually provided it to them at a reasonable cost.
It's not all plain and simple as your farmer and vagrant analogy make it appear to be.
If people stopped consuming protected media, including songs from iTunes, it would make a difference.
In fact, businesses looking for a niche market in the entertainment business could get in and make it big by selling non-protected media, and marketing it as such.
Try Cygwin. And Monad doesn't run on all Windows platforms, unlike Cygwin. It would only work on LH and XP (if they decide to port it back).
The OP is trying to say that they are reinventing Unix with LH, evidenced by the new virtual folders, file permissions, new scriptable shell and so on.
The whole poverty thing was in response to your volunteering to going down to your local library and getting case studies.
Like I said later on, you implied it. By saying that there was blame to be put on parents, you are saying that there is blame to begin with, i.e. that violent games for kids is wrong, at least in part.
There is a difference between "It shuts up the social conservatives who can then shift the blame onto..." and "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto...". The former implies that the social conservatives shift the blame, while the latter implies you're shifting the blame.
But here's a better idea. Instead of shifting blame, real or fake, perhaps discourse and debate with proof that games don't cause violence is more in order. Getting social conservatives to shift their focus doesn't solve anything.
As for the second-hand smoke, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Canadian Cancer Society, amongst others, agree with me. I may not have any education in science, so I can't tell you what carcinogens and what chemicals are involved, but I can tell you what makes sense.
Large parts of what you said were conditionals, to which there is no reply. So I skimmed over those parts. And which party line did I toe again?
Guess what leads to a greater propensity towards violence? Poverty, injustice and indifference. All I'm saying is that there are far more causes of violence, and keeping 'violent' games out of the hands of children is pretty low on the list.
Violent experiences are real. Violent images on a TV screen generated by the latest from Carmack is fake. I think most 10 year olds can tell the difference (even with the improvements in graphics).
The pro-gaming expert has nothing to do with my opinion. I was stating what the problem was as I saw it, not as he saw it.
You may not have said it explicitly, but you did so implicitly. By saying that the blame should be put on parents for buying those games, you are implicitly saying that buying those games for kids is wrong. That is to say, you agree that violent games cause violent tendencies. Unless you have something against Valve, I can't see why else you would think so.
Let's see. Smoking causes lung cancer. Exhaled pollutants from smokers includes part of those carcinogens. Anyone near a smoker could be taking that in those pollutants. What am I missing?
I don't see how parents buying their kids kegs on the weekends are doing anything wrong. If they believe that their kids can handle it and are old enough, why not? We're all not the same. People don't grow alcohol-resistant organs from 17yrs 364days to 18yrs 0days. It's a rule of thumb that's been extended too far. The good thing about parents who buy kegs for their kids is that they can control the intake. Better in their house than somewhere outside with no one who can assume responsibility.
I read the comments just fine thank you. Just because I disagree does not make me a karma-whoring slashbot. The word you're looking for is dissenter.
There were violent movies, books and comics. I was born in a violent part of my city, and I'm not violent.
The problem is not with enforcing game ratings. The problem is believing that violent games cause violent tendencies.
Alcohol, in excessive amounts, has been known to cause violence and reckless behavior in individuals. Smoking causes second-hand pollutants which endanger other people. How does playing Metal Gear Solid 3 on my PS2 harm anyone directly?
Why should there be any blame with respect to games at all? There are a lot of social factors that lead towards violence. Remember that the Japanese and Europeans, amongst others, play the same games, but have lower rates of violence.
Slashdot Mirror
how come they don't publish stuff which embarasses india? every day there's corruption being reported in the news in india... but wikileaks covers none of it?
So, you're asking why Wikileaks, an organization which leaks secrets and publicly unavailable documents, doesn't cover the publicly available and frequent reports of corruption in India?
My point was that impressions and prejudices, how much ever they may be regarded as deserved, tend to cause problems. It was the impression, the 'knee-jerk reaction' as the reporter himself put it, which caused this little incident, and the OP was defending it, at least partially, by saying China never gets the benefit of the doubt.
There are those who criticize the US government for taking actions in Iraq without the full facts, and yet they continue to hold similar prejudices about other countries.
So, pundit, how do you stop that darn relative from copying a low-quality product innovated by a second-class human being? I would have thought that the Hindu self-defeatism would be enough
Dumbass
He's not using Creative's drivers.
</threadjack>
My point exactly. If you are hungry, you get the former; if you're thirsty, you get the latter. They're both still in the food business, but target different markets. In Harrison's mind, the DS and the PSP are in the same business (handheld console business) but are targetting different spheres.
Whether or not this is the case is a different matter. What matters is that this is how he sees it and how Sony's plan follows this idea. If Sony sees the DS as a bag of chips, it is irrelevant to Sony as it is targetting a different sphere.
Truly, there could be people who wish to buy one of them. To them, the PSP is in direct competition with the DS. But what matters here, and this is where Slashdot has it wrong, is that Sony and Harrison don't see it that way, and Harrison is speaking on behalf of himself. He is not speaking for the customer.
Firstly, it is not off the subject. It is entirely on topic, seeing as how it's in the headline.
He didn't call the DS a gimmick. He did say the touch-screen on the DS was a gimmick, and that Nintendo shouldn't base their marketing solely on that.
Saying that whole Pokemon bit is not demeaning. It might be wrong, but not demeaning.
I suggest you read the article instead of the inaccurate Slashdot summary.
Just as stupid? Perhaps. Did he call the DS itself a gimmick? No.
Sony believes its going after one market, and it believes Nintendo is going after another. They base their marketing on that.
The fact that you can buy both and that in your mind they are competing for your money means absolutely nothing to either company's marketing scheme.
Put it another way: if you had $400, you could buy 400 bags of chips or 400 cans of soda. But Coke and Doritos are not in competition with each other; they target different markets. Get it?
By that he means the touch-screen idea. What I understood of that paragraph is simply that if the DS is only going to market its touch-screen and does not have any other technical merits, its success will be based on that gimmick.
Indeed. He believes that only kids will like the DS and that Sony is targetting an older market with the PSP. What the deuce is wrong with that? Is targetting children for a gaming platform demeaning somehow?
Harrison merely said that the DS' touch-screen was a gimmick, not that the DS itself was a gimmick.
He also said that the DS was not part of Sony's planning as well as it shouldn't be. He believes they're targetting different markets, so why should it?
Way too much irrelevant Sony hatred. Sony does stupid things, but not everything they do is stupid.
I saw FidelCatsro stealing the cluestick from the cookie jar.
That was exactly my point. The law means that gun manufacturers can be liable for murder too. It was a summary of what the OP posted.
I must remember to use <sarcasm> tags next time. Silly old me.
Guns don't kill people. People who make guns kill people.
Would this mean that those who aided and abetted a gun manufacturer to make the gun, via the sale of tools and so on, can be liable as accomplices too?
The only non-free browser, Opera, already has a fix for it.
What's your point?
I agree, theft does have an impact on people's lives. But this is not theft. I guess you skipped out on that rationalization.
Yes, people can go without many products. Of course, the money issue only crops up if the product is available legally in that market. What if it isn't?
I already said that many people would pay for it if the price was reasonable. I'd like to see you charge an exorbitant price for your software, with or without software protection, and see how your sales fare. That is a demand/supply issue, and not a piracy issue.
Will the company really adjust prices? Has Microsoft, whose software is amongst the most pirated, adjusted its prices? Nope. It only offers cheaper, lower-quality versions of its software for those markets. Has Hollywood lowered its price? No. Going to a movie costs an arm and a foot, and some extra if you want popcorn.
I'm not saying people are entitled to piracy because companies charge too much. Rather what I meant was that if companies really want to see an end to piracy, charge less, making their products more effective alternatives to pirated products.
Well looks like the farmer is quite the idiot, then. All he has to do is plant weeds and the like on the outer fringe and the problem is solved.
But here's where your analogy fails. One, by taking crops to his/her heart's desire, the vagrant denied both the farmer and others from it. That is stealing. However, 'pirates' do no deny others from partaking in media they are 'pirating'. That's the difference.
The second point is that there is no evidence that the 'pirate' would consume the product if (s)he couldn't get a 'pirated' version. The logic is that a person may watch something because it is free (via 'piracy'), so (s)he has nothing to lose, except leisure time. If (s)he were to buy or consume the product legally, the cost might exceed the benefits, for him/her, and thus the 'pirate' may not consume the said product.
Thirdly, a lot of 'pirates' are from overseas where they have no access to that product (especially in the case of TV). I'm sure many 'pirates' would pay for it if content providers actually provided it to them at a reasonable cost.
It's not all plain and simple as your farmer and vagrant analogy make it appear to be.
What makes this study any more accurate than others?
This study is one of the 3.75% of all studies of which the statistics are not pulled from a derriere.
If people stopped consuming protected media, including songs from iTunes, it would make a difference.
In fact, businesses looking for a niche market in the entertainment business could get in and make it big by selling non-protected media, and marketing it as such.
Try Cygwin. And Monad doesn't run on all Windows platforms, unlike Cygwin. It would only work on LH and XP (if they decide to port it back).
The OP is trying to say that they are reinventing Unix with LH, evidenced by the new virtual folders, file permissions, new scriptable shell and so on.
The whole poverty thing was in response to your volunteering to going down to your local library and getting case studies.
Like I said later on, you implied it. By saying that there was blame to be put on parents, you are saying that there is blame to begin with, i.e. that violent games for kids is wrong, at least in part.
There is a difference between "It shuts up the social conservatives who can then shift the blame onto..." and "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto...". The former implies that the social conservatives shift the blame, while the latter implies you're shifting the blame.
But here's a better idea. Instead of shifting blame, real or fake, perhaps discourse and debate with proof that games don't cause violence is more in order. Getting social conservatives to shift their focus doesn't solve anything.
As for the second-hand smoke, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Canadian Cancer Society, amongst others, agree with me. I may not have any education in science, so I can't tell you what carcinogens and what chemicals are involved, but I can tell you what makes sense.
Large parts of what you said were conditionals, to which there is no reply. So I skimmed over those parts. And which party line did I toe again?
Guess what leads to a greater propensity towards violence? Poverty, injustice and indifference. All I'm saying is that there are far more causes of violence, and keeping 'violent' games out of the hands of children is pretty low on the list.
Violent experiences are real. Violent images on a TV screen generated by the latest from Carmack is fake. I think most 10 year olds can tell the difference (even with the improvements in graphics).
The pro-gaming expert has nothing to do with my opinion. I was stating what the problem was as I saw it, not as he saw it.
You may not have said it explicitly, but you did so implicitly. By saying that the blame should be put on parents for buying those games, you are implicitly saying that buying those games for kids is wrong. That is to say, you agree that violent games cause violent tendencies. Unless you have something against Valve, I can't see why else you would think so.
Let's see. Smoking causes lung cancer. Exhaled pollutants from smokers includes part of those carcinogens. Anyone near a smoker could be taking that in those pollutants. What am I missing?
I don't see how parents buying their kids kegs on the weekends are doing anything wrong. If they believe that their kids can handle it and are old enough, why not? We're all not the same. People don't grow alcohol-resistant organs from 17yrs 364days to 18yrs 0days. It's a rule of thumb that's been extended too far. The good thing about parents who buy kegs for their kids is that they can control the intake. Better in their house than somewhere outside with no one who can assume responsibility.
I read the comments just fine thank you. Just because I disagree does not make me a karma-whoring slashbot. The word you're looking for is dissenter.
There were violent movies, books and comics. I was born in a violent part of my city, and I'm not violent.
The problem is not with enforcing game ratings. The problem is believing that violent games cause violent tendencies.
Alcohol, in excessive amounts, has been known to cause violence and reckless behavior in individuals. Smoking causes second-hand pollutants which endanger other people. How does playing Metal Gear Solid 3 on my PS2 harm anyone directly?
Why should there be any blame with respect to games at all? There are a lot of social factors that lead towards violence. Remember that the Japanese and Europeans, amongst others, play the same games, but have lower rates of violence.
It was more of a reference to how people think you're 1337 if you use Linux.
If you use Linux, you are not just a computer user. Thus, Linux was not included in this survey.