With Yahoo Music providing access to over 1 million songs for $5/month I would think the damages that RIAA can claim are limited to whatever share Yahoo would have passed onto them if these file-sharers had gone legit with a subscription. Or am I just being naive?
Well, not exactly. These people are being sued for their *distribution* of pirated music. So, if 1000 people downloaded tracks from the sharer, then that's 1000 $5 subscriptions that RIAA lost -- at least, that is what they claim in court. And that is how RIAA justifies such high payouts. It's not about the getting --- it's about the giving.
A) Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes.
Do you have any idea what you are suggesting?
Here's an economics lesson. People live close to where they can find work. These jobs are in three primary industries: manufacturing, trade, and services. Manufacturing and trade are the foundations of an economy, with services following -- one cannot build an economy with services alone.
Now, oceans are a FUNDAMENTAL requirement for trade. We simply do not have large enough planes to carry bulk cargo efficiently between continents. Without ports, no trade. Are you REALLY suggesting that we should ABANDON all intercontinental trade?
the fact is, New Orleans occupies such an important place in the US, that it can't POSSIBLY be abandoned. the cost of rebuilding it is FAR less than the loss of not having it. It sits on the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is a massively important shipping channel -- one of the most important in the world. It also sits near huge deposits of oil and natural gas, and has a large network of refineries nearby. By abandoning New Orleans, we have to abandon literally centuries of massively expensive & vital infrastructure. It's simply not even remotely realistic.
Besides, where else should people live? Anywhere you chose to live has some sort of natural disaster: Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, mudslides, avalanches, volcanos, floods... where are you going to go to escape all natural disasters?
BTW, Not all oceans have hurricanes. The cost of South America below Venezuela doesn't get hit, nor does the coast of west Africa. In fact, more coastline worldwide is NOT in danger of hurricanes than is in danger. So you're wrong about that, too.
first you say: Cities that get 'hit' by hurricanes do not exist after that point, as there are not any buildings there anymore,
and then you say: And plenty of cities have been hit much harder by hurricanes, and continue to exist just fine.
Ok, um, which is it? does a city getting "hit" by a hurricane exist or not? Is this some sort of existentialist thing? I don't get it.
Please let me know soon, because my hometown was directly hit with the eyewall of 3 hurricanes last year, and I need you to tell me if it still exists or not!
This is the typical WSJ restatement of the obvious. The real question is how much truth there is to it. I'm sure that commercial companies like MS (and Sun etc..) can do better than open source when they really focus. A salary is a great thing.
First, Solaris is open source now.;)
Second, do you really think that Linux is being developed by just a bunch of geeks in their parent's basements, for free, in their spare time?! What, does RedHat (a multi-billion dollar company) not pay it's programmers? Does Novell not pay it's programmers? Does IBM not pay it's programmers? Hell, the "core" linux team regularly receives donations and corporate sponsorship. For example, the OSDL bankrolls Linus.
The idea that most of the development on Linux is done for "free" is a myth. Linux is where it is today because huge companies have poured billions of dollars into developing it.
The plain fact is that some of the people who stole Microsoft's software will pay up, and others will stop using it. This is win-win from Microsoft's perspective.
Losing marketshare & mind share is WINNING? Erm, I don't think so. MS has maintained market dominance by being "the only game in town". By opening the door to competition, they risk loosing a lot of the vender lock-in that has protected their market. How many times have you heard, "I won't switch to Linux because I can't run program X"? Why is program X not for Linux? because everyone uses MS. When that changes, so does a huge obstacle for many would-be switchers.
Sure it does.
Lets see:
Free pirated version of XP: Runs all my windows programs that I ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO USE because they're not available on any other OS.
Free GNU/Linux distribution: Might run some of my windows programs if I use wine, which is not exactly an easy feat. And even then, probably won't run them well...
hmm.. I have a feeling Pirated XP still wins. (for the people we're talking about.. in context)
No. In context, I'm discussing MS's acceptance into 3rd world nations. Most of these brand-new computer users want web, email, and word processing, not AutoCAD.
So the choice is: a very limited OS that costs you a few day's salary (WinXP SE), a somewhat limited OS that costs you a few hours salary for a burned copy (WinXP pirated), or a full-featured OS (GNU/Linux) that costs you a few hours salary for a burned (legit) copy. Who's going to look at a complete OS (WinXP legit) that costs you 3 months of salary?!
Considering that they'll give people the option of buying XP Pro for $150? Are you kidding? $150 isn't nearly enough to make people even consider switching platforms, and going through all the related headaches. If anything, they'll sell a hell of a lot more copies of XP. But, I think you're right. People who consider switching platforms over $150 are pretty brainless.
You missed my point. I'm talking about piracy in THIRD WORLD nations.
Would someone who makes a yearly salary of $3100 consider switching platforms over 2 weeks salary? how about 3 months of salary?
Also, most of these new users aren't switching platforms. For most, this is a first computer. So the headaches of learning a new system, transferring old files, etc are non-existant.
I wrote about this earlier today on bitsofnews.com. I'll save you the click and paste my thoughts here.
I am not sure how MS expects to keep pushing this down people's throats.
Most people don't want to be treated as thieves, and I can see some general backlash coming to MS from this.
I really don't see how this will, in the long run, benefit MS. Most people in the 1st world buy a computer from a major distributer, and use the (usually) legit copy of Windows from that. I'm guessing that that one-third number includes nations like India and China, where people can't afford the 1st world pricing scheme of Windows.
Oh, wait, silly me, why don't these poor people just use XP Starter Edition? Right. That's the ticket.
Do they seriously think this will decrease piracy in the 3rd world? All they've really done is cripple their product. They now have several issues to deal with.
This "Genuine Advantage" program is tantamount to legitimizing "pirated" XP. To many, I suspect it sends the message: "Ok, use pirated XP if you want, we'll just give special benefits to those who pay us." It's almost like a "shareware" model of distribution. Seeing how they are trying to push "XP Starter Edition", I seriously doubt this is their intent -- but it looks like they've emasculated that product entirely.
Simply, Pirated XP Home/Pro is still less crippled than XP SE. So for the 3rd world market, it's a choice between paying for a highly crippled OS, or getting a slightly crippled OS for free. I don't see many people paying for the privilege of less features.
This is also a potential gold mine for alternative OS's, such as the newer GNU/Linux systems pushing ease-of-install; Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandravia, Fedora spring to mind immediately, and there are many others.
Given the choice of a super-crippled SE, a somewhat-crippled XP Home/Pro, or a fully-functional GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux becomes an increasingly "no-brainer" solution.
The algorithm must take into buddy back-listing, too.
I checked my current screen name against my previous screen name. My previous name (which I haven't used in YEARS) beat my current one... even though my current name has all the buddies my old list had, plus tons of new ones. The thing is, many of those names are people I haven't chatted with in years, so they probably don't have my current handle in their list...
I've never heard that expression before... what does it mean?
By that reasoning, putting a winter coat in the closet for the summer is hiding it.
Um, only if you're putting it in the closet to keep it from being found.
Hiding carries with it an implied malicious intent.
No it doesn't. In fact, hiding in this case shows non-malicious intent -- they didn't want people to find it, becaus they didn't want people to play it. I don't think this is a case of malicious intent. If you know another english word that means, "obscure with the intent of preventing access", that doesn't imply to you malicious intent, feel free to suggest it.
Who cares why they didn't remove it? It wasn't activated. I would argue that they did exactly what you suggest. They knew it wasn't worth it, that it would cause problems for the game, so they *didn't* do it. That's why the code wasn't active.
As I said above, I don't think they were doing this malicously. But it was negligent. Considering how much games are hacked -- game hackers love to find easter eggs, cheats, bugs, etc. -- they should have known better. "Hiding" / obscuring / deactiviting the code was insufficent, and they should have known that. That's what Rockstar did wrong.
Rockstar didn't "set off a chain of problems". Bad parents, political zealots, and a bored hacker set off a chain of problems.
Oh, I agree that politicians are totally blowing this out of proportion. It's not like the game is deceptively named, for crying out loud. I never said that Rockstar is the only player in this "scandal". But they bear a certain amount of responsibiity. It is their obligation to deal with the issue, and not just hide in a corner saying, "not my fault!".
However, when all is said and done, Rockstar is responsible for the content of Rockstar's games. Similar hacks, like the Sims2 hack, modified or added content. This hack, however, exposed already existing content.
So let's conveniently ignore the fact that the game shouldn't be in the hands of anyone under 17 anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that polygon sex is much less risque than the theft, murder, and score of other laws being bent and broken through the game.
Oh, no, let's not loose sight of that. I wholeheartedly agree on that point. I think the fact that new legislation is being proposed because of this is absolutely retarded. I mean, the age of consent in Florida is 16 (if the partner is < 18 or there was a prior relationship... etc.) So, you can go have real sex, but heaven forbid you see fake sex. Oh, you can control a caracter when he kills a cop, but, oh no, you're controlling a caracter who is having sex? Oh no!
Games are currently self-regulated, and this has worked quite well. I approve the efforts of the gaming industry to self-regulate, preventing more government intrusion and control over free expression. The problem is, Rockstar is pushing the line pretty hard. The GTA series has raised quite a few eyebrows and hackles, while giving ammo to the gaming industry's rather powerful enemies. "Hot coffee" has become very powerful ammunition.
That's why rockstar needs to stop hiding, fess up, take the heat of their fuckup, and correct the issue -- without requiring government intervention.
I disagree. Rockstar didn't "hide a sex game" in GTA. It is inaccessible without modifying the game code. I own the PS2 version, and I can't get to this through game progress or a combination of button taps. I would need an AR Max. They decided not to use it, so they locked the code up and left it in place.
Ok... They put it in there, then locked it up, and didn't tell anyone. I.E., they deliberately obscured it's existance, to prevent it from being found. I think if you look up the word hid in a dictionary, like this one, you will find that what they did does, in fact, constitute hiding. It's not a matter of agreeing. The word "hide", as currently defined by modern english, perfectly describes what they did.
Irresponsible? I suppose.
Exactly, that was part my point. They were irresponsible, their actions were incorrect, and now they discover that their incorrect actions have consequences.
But what need is there to report that to the ESRB? It has to be hacked to be used. It is not a part of gameplay, or even a true easter egg. Just an idea that went sour.
Yes, but why didn't Rockstar remove it? That's what I'm trying to say: when you *know* something is bad, that it will get you in trouble, that it will cause problems for everyone, you shouldn't do it. Rockstar has set off a chain problems for the entire fucking industry just because they couldn't be bothered to comment out a few lines of code. No, it's not all their fault, not by a long shot. Yes, they are getting more flak than they deserve. But they did make a mistake, and they do need to be corrected on their mistake.
It's there, it was a bad idea, boo hoo. IMHO, Rockstar should say, "oops, our bad." ESRB should say, "Tut tut, don't do that again. Here, we must slap your wrist now." Slap. Then the issue should go away. Alas, everyone is too much into saving face or making political ground to let this happen.
I completely agree that parents who buy a "mature" game for their kids, and then find out it has "mature" content, have no right to be outraged. I meant to put that in, but I hit submit a second too early.;)
However, I disagree that "the parents are to blame" is all their is to this case. The "bad parents" didn't go and hide a sex game inside of GTA. Rockstar did. They hid content from the ESRB, something they had to know would cause problems. That is their culpa. They get blame for that.
and the politicians are the ones who made this a scandal. It is their overreaction that has turned a stupid hack of a stupid idea into an excuse for more government regulation.
So, yeah, thanks for pointing out an important point that I missed, but I don't think "bad parents" is the all of the story.
this limp tale of adolescent sex fantasy, Christian self-righteousness and coding.
Riiiiight. Because if someone is self-rightious, he *must* be Christian. If someone tries to turn the latest "OMG Think of Teh Childaran!!11one" issue into her own personal gain, well, that's just because she's a religious nut, right? I mean, Hillary Clinton is known for being a pawn of the Relgious Right.
Now, I agree that this whole issue has been blown waaaaay out of proportion, and I agree with the author that this is one of the dumbest "scandals" I've heard in a long time.
But let's put the blame where it belongs: 1. Rockstar for putting something stupid like that in the game, and 2) self-seeking politicians who want to leave a "legacy" of "protecting the people from themselves". This isn't a "right/left" issue... this is a "freeedom/government regulation" issue.
Your points stand on their own; why injure your own moral high-ground with rediculous generalizations and unnecessary jabs at religious beliefs?
The one tiny good point Dvorak makes here is that the CC licenses should have a (purely informational) clause noting that "none of these limitations should be construed as eliminating any Fair Use rights granted by U.S. copyright law." That's a clarification to the license that is at least worth discussing.
to quote from his "column" (used in a very loose sense of the word): There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes? What difference does it make, if everyone is free and easy about this? In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?
What it's telling you, John, is that you're a dumbfuck who hasn't figured out that the CC license is a MODULAR license.
The basic CC license is, essentially, "public domain" -- there are no restrictions on your reproduction of the material. CC then offers legally defined exceptions. With all of the CC terms in place, you have essentially the full standard U.S. copyright restrictions.
What CC does is it gives you a legally well-formed copyright system that lets you protect your work, yet lets it be redistributed somewhat more freely than typical material, but not-quite public domain free.
it just so happens that one of those optional restrictions is "no commercial distribution". I'd like to point out that this does not in any way trump "fair use", something that Dvorak would know if he had the IQ of a pet rock.
as to why I use CC: I want to allow my works (should I actually get around to putting some content on my website... any day now, folks...;) to be distributed, and I want to encourage their distribution -- however, I want them to be protected. Namely, I want credit for what I do, and I want more people to release their work freely. So I have a "By, Share Alike" License -- Commercial derivations are perfectly ok.
Can we please not have any more Dvorak on/.? He's just so mind-bogglingly stupid, he makes me feel physically ill. Seriously.
Someone else mentioned the PSP, which would work, but isn't ideal because of the memory stick costs (unless of course you're already using a camera that uses Memory Stick Pro Duo).
but memory stick prices are dropping, while growing in capacity...
also, while there is currently no UMD writer, Sony has licensed UMD tech to a number of other companies. This is paving the way for a UMD burner -- and a UMD would definitely hold enough photos.
However, I agree that an HD is the ideal storage solution... and that's part of what keeps the PSP from being the ideal "personal media center" that it comes so close to being. It's still closer than the iPod, I think.
Wall Street Journal quotes a doctor: 'My impression is that people believe more of what they read than what I tell them. It seems that traditional Western medicine based on scientific evidence is less and less trusted by the general public. Meanwhile, some dubious theory from the Internet will be swallowed hook, line and sinker nine times out of 10.' "
Why is this?
Why do people fall for 419 Scams? Why do people *let* spyware onto their machines? Why do people let the government walk over their rights in the name of freedom? Why do people believe the universe is only 6,000 years old? Why do people refuse to learn the basic workings of the technology they use every day of their lives?
It's not because they're stupid. Well, ok, many of them are. but many are not. Why do they do/think these stupid things?
Because they are taught to do this.
They are taught that science is "hard" and "mysterious"; that it's ok to "not get that hard sceince stuff". They are taught to accept what they're told, without being taught how to distinguish reliable sources of information from the scams.
They are taught that critical reasoning is unnecessary, but they are now given virtually free access to vast amounts of unregulated information that requires critical reasoning to correctly process.
Of course, the government will decide to regulate the information, in the "interest" of the "comman person" who doesn't have enough critical reasoning to realize this is a terrible idea.
The ideal solution is a device with a screen of a similar size to a standard print which you can pass around friends and family to show off your collection. The interface should be so simple grandparents can use it, and Apple have a clear lead in this area. Add in an interface to iPhoto which rivals the iTunes interface and I think you have a winner.
The interface is beautiful and simple. it plays videos flawlessly, and I think it displays photos, as well... and the screen is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
Maybe Sony should work on it's target audience with the PSP...?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not exactly. These people are being sued for their *distribution* of pirated music. So, if 1000 people downloaded tracks from the sharer, then that's 1000 $5 subscriptions that RIAA lost -- at least, that is what they claim in court. And that is how RIAA justifies such high payouts. It's not about the getting --- it's about the giving.
Do you have any idea what you are suggesting?
Here's an economics lesson. People live close to where they can find work. These jobs are in three primary industries: manufacturing, trade, and services. Manufacturing and trade are the foundations of an economy, with services following -- one cannot build an economy with services alone.
Now, oceans are a FUNDAMENTAL requirement for trade. We simply do not have large enough planes to carry bulk cargo efficiently between continents. Without ports, no trade. Are you REALLY suggesting that we should ABANDON all intercontinental trade?
the fact is, New Orleans occupies such an important place in the US, that it can't POSSIBLY be abandoned. the cost of rebuilding it is FAR less than the loss of not having it. It sits on the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is a massively important shipping channel -- one of the most important in the world. It also sits near huge deposits of oil and natural gas, and has a large network of refineries nearby. By abandoning New Orleans, we have to abandon literally centuries of massively expensive & vital infrastructure. It's simply not even remotely realistic.
Besides, where else should people live? Anywhere you chose to live has some sort of natural disaster: Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, mudslides, avalanches, volcanos, floods... where are you going to go to escape all natural disasters?
BTW, Not all oceans have hurricanes. The cost of South America below Venezuela doesn't get hit, nor does the coast of west Africa. In fact, more coastline worldwide is NOT in danger of hurricanes than is in danger. So you're wrong about that, too.
first you say:
Cities that get 'hit' by hurricanes do not exist after that point, as there are not any buildings there anymore,
and then you say:
And plenty of cities have been hit much harder by hurricanes, and continue to exist just fine.
Ok, um, which is it? does a city getting "hit" by a hurricane exist or not? Is this some sort of existentialist thing? I don't get it.
Please let me know soon, because my hometown was directly hit with the eyewall of 3 hurricanes last year, and I need you to tell me if it still exists or not!
Yes it is. http://www.linux.org/dist/
More importantly, Yes, it is.
First, Solaris is open source now. ;)
Second, do you really think that Linux is being developed by just a bunch of geeks in their parent's basements, for free, in their spare time?! What, does RedHat (a multi-billion dollar company) not pay it's programmers? Does Novell not pay it's programmers? Does IBM not pay it's programmers? Hell, the "core" linux team regularly receives donations and corporate sponsorship. For example, the OSDL bankrolls Linus.
The idea that most of the development on Linux is done for "free" is a myth. Linux is where it is today because huge companies have poured billions of dollars into developing it.
Don't worry, Apple will never license it's OS. It tried that, it sucked for Apple... they learned their lesson.
Apple licensing it's OS is about as likely as Apple switching to x86, or releasing a multi-button mouse.
Oh, wait...
You mean, except IE6... Oh, wait, you said modern browsers. Ok, I see your point now...
Losing marketshare & mind share is WINNING? Erm, I don't think so. MS has maintained market dominance by being "the only game in town". By opening the door to competition, they risk loosing a lot of the vender lock-in that has protected their market. How many times have you heard, "I won't switch to Linux because I can't run program X"? Why is program X not for Linux? because everyone uses MS. When that changes, so does a huge obstacle for many would-be switchers.
No. In context, I'm discussing MS's acceptance into 3rd world nations. Most of these brand-new computer users want web, email, and word processing, not AutoCAD.
So the choice is: a very limited OS that costs you a few day's salary (WinXP SE), a somewhat limited OS that costs you a few hours salary for a burned copy (WinXP pirated), or a full-featured OS (GNU/Linux) that costs you a few hours salary for a burned (legit) copy. Who's going to look at a complete OS (WinXP legit) that costs you 3 months of salary?!
You missed my point. I'm talking about piracy in THIRD WORLD nations.
Would someone who makes a yearly salary of $3100 consider switching platforms over 2 weeks salary? how about 3 months of salary?
Also, most of these new users aren't switching platforms. For most, this is a first computer. So the headaches of learning a new system, transferring old files, etc are non-existant.
I wrote about this earlier today on bitsofnews.com. I'll save you the click and paste my thoughts here.
I am not sure how MS expects to keep pushing this down people's throats.
Most people don't want to be treated as thieves, and I can see some general backlash coming to MS from this.
I really don't see how this will, in the long run, benefit MS. Most people in the 1st world buy a computer from a major distributer, and use the (usually) legit copy of Windows from that. I'm guessing that that one-third number includes nations like India and China, where people can't afford the 1st world pricing scheme of Windows.
Oh, wait, silly me, why don't these poor people just use XP Starter Edition? Right. That's the ticket.
Do they seriously think this will decrease piracy in the 3rd world? All they've really done is cripple their product. They now have several issues to deal with.
This "Genuine Advantage" program is tantamount to legitimizing "pirated" XP. To many, I suspect it sends the message: "Ok, use pirated XP if you want, we'll just give special benefits to those who pay us." It's almost like a "shareware" model of distribution. Seeing how they are trying to push "XP Starter Edition", I seriously doubt this is their intent -- but it looks like they've emasculated that product entirely.
Simply, Pirated XP Home/Pro is still less crippled than XP SE. So for the 3rd world market, it's a choice between paying for a highly crippled OS, or getting a slightly crippled OS for free. I don't see many people paying for the privilege of less features.
This is also a potential gold mine for alternative OS's, such as the newer GNU/Linux systems pushing ease-of-install; Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandravia, Fedora spring to mind immediately, and there are many others.
Given the choice of a super-crippled SE, a somewhat-crippled XP Home/Pro, or a fully-functional GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux becomes an increasingly "no-brainer" solution.
It should be!
Sic semper spammeris!
^_^
The algorithm must take into buddy back-listing, too.
I checked my current screen name against my previous screen name. My previous name (which I haven't used in YEARS) beat my current one... even though my current name has all the buddies my old list had, plus tons of new ones. The thing is, many of those names are people I haven't chatted with in years, so they probably don't have my current handle in their list...
otherwise, this result makes little sense.
I've never heard that expression before... what does it mean?
By that reasoning, putting a winter coat in the closet for the summer is hiding it.Um, only if you're putting it in the closet to keep it from being found.
Hiding carries with it an implied malicious intent.No it doesn't. In fact, hiding in this case shows non-malicious intent -- they didn't want people to find it, becaus they didn't want people to play it. I don't think this is a case of malicious intent. If you know another english word that means, "obscure with the intent of preventing access", that doesn't imply to you malicious intent, feel free to suggest it.
Who cares why they didn't remove it? It wasn't activated. I would argue that they did exactly what you suggest. They knew it wasn't worth it, that it would cause problems for the game, so they *didn't* do it. That's why the code wasn't active.As I said above, I don't think they were doing this malicously. But it was negligent. Considering how much games are hacked -- game hackers love to find easter eggs, cheats, bugs, etc. -- they should have known better. "Hiding" / obscuring / deactiviting the code was insufficent, and they should have known that. That's what Rockstar did wrong.
Rockstar didn't "set off a chain of problems". Bad parents, political zealots, and a bored hacker set off a chain of problems.Oh, I agree that politicians are totally blowing this out of proportion. It's not like the game is deceptively named, for crying out loud. I never said that Rockstar is the only player in this "scandal". But they bear a certain amount of responsibiity. It is their obligation to deal with the issue, and not just hide in a corner saying, "not my fault!".
However, when all is said and done, Rockstar is responsible for the content of Rockstar's games. Similar hacks, like the Sims2 hack, modified or added content. This hack, however, exposed already existing content. So let's conveniently ignore the fact that the game shouldn't be in the hands of anyone under 17 anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that polygon sex is much less risque than the theft, murder, and score of other laws being bent and broken through the game.Oh, no, let's not loose sight of that. I wholeheartedly agree on that point. I think the fact that new legislation is being proposed because of this is absolutely retarded. I mean, the age of consent in Florida is 16 (if the partner is < 18 or there was a prior relationship... etc.) So, you can go have real sex, but heaven forbid you see fake sex. Oh, you can control a caracter when he kills a cop, but, oh no, you're controlling a caracter who is having sex? Oh no!
Games are currently self-regulated, and this has worked quite well. I approve the efforts of the gaming industry to self-regulate, preventing more government intrusion and control over free expression. The problem is, Rockstar is pushing the line pretty hard. The GTA series has raised quite a few eyebrows and hackles, while giving ammo to the gaming industry's rather powerful enemies. "Hot coffee" has become very powerful ammunition.
That's why rockstar needs to stop hiding, fess up, take the heat of their fuckup, and correct the issue -- without requiring government intervention.
Ok... They put it in there, then locked it up, and didn't tell anyone. I.E., they deliberately obscured it's existance, to prevent it from being found. I think if you look up the word hid in a dictionary, like this one, you will find that what they did does, in fact, constitute hiding. It's not a matter of agreeing. The word "hide", as currently defined by modern english, perfectly describes what they did.
Irresponsible? I suppose.Exactly, that was part my point. They were irresponsible, their actions were incorrect, and now they discover that their incorrect actions have consequences.
But what need is there to report that to the ESRB? It has to be hacked to be used. It is not a part of gameplay, or even a true easter egg. Just an idea that went sour.Yes, but why didn't Rockstar remove it? That's what I'm trying to say: when you *know* something is bad, that it will get you in trouble, that it will cause problems for everyone, you shouldn't do it. Rockstar has set off a chain problems for the entire fucking industry just because they couldn't be bothered to comment out a few lines of code. No, it's not all their fault, not by a long shot. Yes, they are getting more flak than they deserve. But they did make a mistake, and they do need to be corrected on their mistake.
It's there, it was a bad idea, boo hoo. IMHO, Rockstar should say, "oops, our bad." ESRB should say, "Tut tut, don't do that again. Here, we must slap your wrist now." Slap. Then the issue should go away. Alas, everyone is too much into saving face or making political ground to let this happen.
I completely agree that parents who buy a "mature" game for their kids, and then find out it has "mature" content, have no right to be outraged. I meant to put that in, but I hit submit a second too early. ;)
However, I disagree that "the parents are to blame" is all their is to this case. The "bad parents" didn't go and hide a sex game inside of GTA. Rockstar did. They hid content from the ESRB, something they had to know would cause problems. That is their culpa. They get blame for that.
and the politicians are the ones who made this a scandal. It is their overreaction that has turned a stupid hack of a stupid idea into an excuse for more government regulation.
So, yeah, thanks for pointing out an important point that I missed, but I don't think "bad parents" is the all of the story.
Have we ever been anything else?
Riiiiight. Because if someone is self-rightious, he *must* be Christian. If someone tries to turn the latest "OMG Think of Teh Childaran!!11one" issue into her own personal gain, well, that's just because she's a religious nut, right? I mean, Hillary Clinton is known for being a pawn of the Relgious Right.
Now, I agree that this whole issue has been blown waaaaay out of proportion, and I agree with the author that this is one of the dumbest "scandals" I've heard in a long time.
But let's put the blame where it belongs: 1. Rockstar for putting something stupid like that in the game, and 2) self-seeking politicians who want to leave a "legacy" of "protecting the people from themselves". This isn't a "right/left" issue... this is a "freeedom/government regulation" issue.
Your points stand on their own; why injure your own moral high-ground with rediculous generalizations and unnecessary jabs at religious beliefs?
It's already in there: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/fullrigh ts.
So he's wrong about that, too.
I think it's fair to say that he's just a moron who doesn't take the time to perform even the most basic research.
to quote from his "column" (used in a very loose sense of the word):
There are several things that bother me about this initiative. First, Creative Commons is similar to a license. You sign up with the group and post a message saying that your material is protected or covered by Creative Commons. This means that others have certain rights to reuse the material under a variety of provisos, mostly as long as the reuse is not for commercial purposes. Why not commercial purposes? What difference does it make, if everyone is free and easy about this? In other words, a noncommercial site could distribute a million copies of something and that's okay, but a small commercial site cannot deliver two copies if it's for commercial purposes. What is this telling me?
What it's telling you, John, is that you're a dumbfuck who hasn't figured out that the CC license is a MODULAR license.
The basic CC license is, essentially, "public domain" -- there are no restrictions on your reproduction of the material. CC then offers legally defined exceptions. With all of the CC terms in place, you have essentially the full standard U.S. copyright restrictions.
What CC does is it gives you a legally well-formed copyright system that lets you protect your work, yet lets it be redistributed somewhat more freely than typical material, but not-quite public domain free.
it just so happens that one of those optional restrictions is "no commercial distribution". I'd like to point out that this does not in any way trump "fair use", something that Dvorak would know if he had the IQ of a pet rock.
as to why I use CC: I want to allow my works (should I actually get around to putting some content on my website... any day now, folks... ;) to be distributed, and I want to encourage their distribution -- however, I want them to be protected. Namely, I want credit for what I do, and I want more people to release their work freely. So I have a "By, Share Alike" License -- Commercial derivations are perfectly ok.
Can we please not have any more Dvorak on /.? He's just so mind-bogglingly stupid, he makes me feel physically ill. Seriously.
but memory stick prices are dropping, while growing in capacity...
also, while there is currently no UMD writer, Sony has licensed UMD tech to a number of other companies. This is paving the way for a UMD burner -- and a UMD would definitely hold enough photos.
However, I agree that an HD is the ideal storage solution... and that's part of what keeps the PSP from being the ideal "personal media center" that it comes so close to being. It's still closer than the iPod, I think.
Go to "tools", go to "Extensions", click on the greasmonkey extension and click "uninstall" or "update".
I completely agree, and have no arguement with that! that's why I mentioned "walking" instead of "driving". ;)
Why is this?
Why do people fall for 419 Scams? Why do people *let* spyware onto their machines? Why do people let the government walk over their rights in the name of freedom? Why do people believe the universe is only 6,000 years old? Why do people refuse to learn the basic workings of the technology they use every day of their lives?
It's not because they're stupid. Well, ok, many of them are. but many are not. Why do they do/think these stupid things?
Because they are taught to do this.
They are taught that science is "hard" and "mysterious"; that it's ok to "not get that hard sceince stuff". They are taught to accept what they're told, without being taught how to distinguish reliable sources of information from the scams.
They are taught that critical reasoning is unnecessary, but they are now given virtually free access to vast amounts of unregulated information that requires critical reasoning to correctly process.
Of course, the government will decide to regulate the information, in the "interest" of the "comman person" who doesn't have enough critical reasoning to realize this is a terrible idea.
C'est la vie.
Does Apple have a clear lead here? hmmm. I'm not so sure. Have you seen this?
The interface is beautiful and simple. it plays videos flawlessly, and I think it displays photos, as well... and the screen is EXACTLY what you are proposing.
Maybe Sony should work on it's target audience with the PSP...?