Why should only Christian parents be challenged?
on
ESRB Retorts to NIMF
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post. The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me? The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility. Whether the parents are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, agnostic, or even athiest, personal responsibility and the need to properly raise children in moral and ethical values is totally unrelated to their religious beliefs. All parents should be challenged to lead by example, not just Christian parents.
Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well. I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law. So, from that perspective we're in complete agreement; however, all parents should be teaching their kids right from wrong, regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - or the target of said teaching, be it video games, TV, movies, music, etc.
Can someone please explain to me why Microsoft feels the need to do this? Okay, application development is something that probably commands a higher salary in the U.S., but customer service?
I have a really big problem with companies that continually fork out technical support overseas. Regardless of location, just about everyone will need to be trained and learn the products that they have to support. Americans are no less capable of this than anywhere else. But keeping tech support in the U.S. has many benefits with respect to customer service that I think outweigh the cost savings.
Obviously, we have language difficulties when outsourcing. The Indian accent can be incredibly thick and very difficult to understand. I'm very adept at deciphering thick accents, but the Indian accent I find to be even more difficult at times than a thick, Scottish brogue. That certainly does not make the customer support experience any more pleasant.
Additionally, technical support nowadays is often nothing more than reading down a checklist of "did you do this?" Yes, I did before I called. "Well, let's try it again." *groan* Fine. "That didn't work either? Then let's try this." Face facts - anyone can do checklists for troubleshooting. Why is that being off-shored?
What's really infuriating about this announcement is that Microsoft is doing this as Louisiana and Mississippi are attempting to rebuild. You hear continual complaints about how companies are not moving back which can make sense from a manufacturing standpoint where large, capital investments of machinery and transportation need to be made; but from a services point-of-view, putting tech support and other business opportunities in Louisiana and Mississippi can still be cost-effective since those areas have incredibly low standards of living relative to the rest of the country. Then of course Microsoft would have the positive PR of (A) helping to rebuild an area that needs to be rebuilt, (B) having people who at least have an easier-to-understand (for the most part) accent on the other end of the line, (C) providing at least some type of jobs to an area that so desperately needs them, particularly now. Yes, I'm sure that hiring workers in LA/MS is still more expensive than India, but there's more to being a stable and respectable company than making the bottom line as large as possible. (I know, I know. Using "respectable" to represent Microsoft left a bad taste in my mouth, too.)
Am I being too idealistic? Well, perhaps. (Hey, at least I admit it.) But it just seems that Microsoft is missing a major opportunity here to do some good right here at home just so save some money that, frankly, it doesn't need to stay afloat. Hell, how large was its profit last year?
A. With good cables and equipment, the dreaded "analog" copy will be just as good as the digital copy. {Insert various analog/digital arguments here.}
B. DRM is still GONE. You made a CD via wave or MP3s files. Therefore, you made a duplicate of the CD without DRM. Ergo, DRM is defeated. No, it's not a precious 1:1 copy that you anti-analog types like to espouse; however, it is still a completely legitimate copy of that CD without DRM.
Hey, let's not make TOO many demands of the current music industry. We want a resolution that's as least possible. Good music? Creative covers and liner notes? On the same CD? In the era a cookie-cutter, pop music? Good luck.;)
Sony is really setting DRM and copy-protection back by several years. And with each annoucement, they are making more and more people dislike DRM. That's not a bad thing, I suppose, but they're making it painfully obvious that the only fix for this is the complete removal of the software for people's systems with instructions on how to prevent the software from being loaded again in the future. (Sadly, a huge number of people don't know about the Shift key as an autorun disabler.)
Frankly, I want to see a major mea culpa from Sony on just about every TV and radio station that targets the audience from all of those DRMed audio CDs complete with previous said instructions and a promise (that will be kept) that such DRM techniques will never be used in the future.
Considering that even artists themselves are starting to fight back against DRM stating that it does nothing but hurt the fans, which is true, it's about time for the heads of these companies to realize that Sony has crossed the line and that DRM for audio CDs is not only useless but can have dire consequences. I'm not going to use that silly "information wants to be free" dogma that is used too often on/. but it's become clear that negative reactions like DRM are not what keep CD sales going.
Maybe they should - gasp! - try adding value that the customer wants and cannot get over the Internet through downloading rather than trying to add chains to a product that we want to legally buy. For example:
* Buy the CD and get the concert DVD for 1/2 price
* Buy the CD and get a discount on concert tickets and merchandise
* Buy the CD and accumulate points that can be redeemed for other items
Tactics like these, where items that cannot be downloaded are offered as incentive, is a much better alternative to increase sales than pissing off the customer base by nefarious methods such as DRM. This is particularly true because DRM can be defeated by one simple method: CD line out --> PC line in.
In short, make it worth my while to buy the CD and not download it. DRM, particularly the kind that Sony implemented, does the opposite.
Troll. You're a complete troll, and you're not very good at it, I might add.
You cannot compare new items to grey/aftermarket for many reasons, not the least of which is because of warranty. There is not one liquidator or after-market reseller that will offer anything like a 3 year warranty on parts and software for an item which obviously is not theirs. (I'm quite sure that no aftermarket reseller is owned by Sun.) To put those units under a three-year warranty with Sun, it might have to be recertified, which is not free, depending on your local sales rep's time of the month (that's a joke, folks), and it will definitely cost more to put that system under a maintenance contract for three years. So, yes, you can buy it cheaper, but putting it under maintenance contract is much more expensive than just buying an Ultra 20 outright. You clearly do not work with Sun hardware in a corporate environment on a regular basis or you'd know this.
Since the warranty is the major selling point of the Ultra 20, your attempt to downplay the Ultra 20 has no merit.
Back to troll school with you! Go! Bad troll! BAD!!
Considering that I've been working with Sun hardware for over 10 years, yes, I am fully aware of that.
Am I supposed to care? In fact, is anyone supposed to care? If you want the UltraSPARC line, Sun still has high-end workstations to take care of that as well as ALL of their mid-range and high-end servers. They're all UltraSPARC driven. I love this system for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the Ultra 20 supports my two favorite underdogs - Sun and AMD.
The hypocrisy on Slashdot is amazing. We all scream and cheer with "It's about time" at the announcement that Dell might sell AMD hardware. But with Sun, suddenly the attitude is "{nose in air} Well! It's NOT an UltraSPARC! Hrmph! Peasantry!"
So, because you can't customize it on their web site, you're snubbing them all together? Have you not heard of something called a telephone? You can order Sun systems to your customization. Try it. I know, it's one of those archiac, analog devices, but it works! Really!
Let people bitch about how you can build your own for a cheaper price. The Ultra 20 is still the better deal as far as I'm concerned.
* 3 year warranty on both hardware AND software (for which you have to pay extra with just about all other vendors)
* One of the most mature operating systems out there
* One of the most mature 64-bit operating systems out there (TRUE 64 bit)
* The only commercial system that is certified to run the three (arguably) most popular operating systems - Windows, Solaris, and Red Hat
Considering all of those factors, I still consider the Ultra 20 to be a hell of a bargain.
The only catch is that is it NOT $29.95 per month. You pay in three annual installments. I posted an open letter to Sun on a web site that I write for criticizing them for continually advertising $29.95 a month when they actually do not offer such financing. Jonathan Schwartz actually responded to it on his blog stating that financing and legal are the slowest segments of any corporation to respond to new ideas and that the Ultra 20's marketing was rushed. Just an FYI on that.
Still, I'd have that Ultra 20 replace my Sun Blade 100 at home in an instant if I had the finances at the moment.
Fuck reproduction! We fuck and suck for the orgasms!!!
Don't be childish, Jenkins. Where did I say that it was for the sole purpose of propagation?;)
My point is that (until recently) people had to engage in sex in order to have children. The fact that we're here and that we have evidence of humans that go back millenia is proof that this is nothing unnatural and therefore should not be given such a spotlight or such a negative view. So, even if there was no pleasure attributed to it, it has to happen or the species disappears.
You need to lay off the cough syrup. Seriously. I'm worried about you, man.
Fair enough. I thought that he had something to do with politics, but the idea is still the same. He's just someone out there who is desperate for attention to make people think he's out for their interests. Unfortunately, we still have to keep an eye on him because his shrieking is obviously rubbing off on Hillary who has idientified this as her Political Spotlight du Jour.
What you described probably fits all of the politicians inside of the Washington beltway. All that this latest stunt proves is that she's a perfect fit for the Washington insiders who say and do what is necessary to garner votes and successfully fool their constituents.
Look, every so often the politicians make it seem as though there is some critical issue that demands their attention (and our tax dollars) so that we can feel good about ourselves. In the 1950s, we had the horrible Communists infiltrating America. Later on, we had Watergate, which happens all of the time except in this case the culprits were caught. In the 1980s we had Iran/Contra. In the 1990s (or was it 1980s) we had the evils of suggestive music where John Denver was accused of subliminally advocating drugs in "Rocky Mountain High". In the 1990s we briefly had violent games in the spotlight due to those two jackasses at Columbine. We also had to investiage whether Billy Boy screwed a government intern. Lots of money spent on that one.
And now we have video games back in the spotlight because of -- HORRORS! -- sex!! You know, that thing that every parent through th the history of man has performed in order to propagate the species? Obsessive, narcissistic, self-absorbed politicians on both sides of the ailse have once again found a rallying cry to make it look like they have our interests (and of course our children's interests - can't forget the children) at heart.
I'm very much right-of-center politically, but I can spot opportunistic politians on both sides of the aisle. And right now it's just about even. If you're going to include Hillary, you have to include that idiot Republican senator from Florida (Jack Thompson, I beleive) as well.
That's not a really valid argument.
on
The End of Copyright
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your two examples aren't necesarily fair comparisons. You're talking about $15 for a program. That's not a real-world scenario in this case when we're talking about games that come out at $50-60 street price. $15 is well within the budget of most people, so if given a choice between shelling out $15 for a program or having to deal with some level of copy protection, I'm sure that most people would rather just pay the $15.
You're also talking about a program that's required. The students had no choice but to use that software in order to complete assignments. We're talking about games here. There is absolutely no requirements to play games, unless you work for PC Gamer or something like that.:)
When you combine the two - a required program and a purchase price that is less expensive than a night out at the movies - the decision to buy it due to copy protection is a no brainer. When you're talking about a voluntary purchase of a game at a cost upwards of $50, that's a completely different scenario that will be looked at differently unless you're one of the fortunate who have lots of disposable income.
Now, in fairness, I've done exactly what you've said - purchased an additional copy for my secondary PC because it couldn't be copied, my ethics at the time prevented me from simply using a No-CD crack and pirated key, and I had the funds to purchase a second copy. But I'll bet that for every post that said that someone bought a second copy there are many more that either decided to go without or know how to get around it because the cost was prohibitive. The topic of current pricing for games is a whole other topic that is best left for another thread.
However, your primary example cannot be applied to what we're talking about unless every game out there happens to be available for $15. Good luck finding any new game of any value for close to that price if it comes from a major publisher. Independent gaming companies, possibly. EA and Ubi? Not a flippin' chance.
Real piracy is not stopped by stupid protections.
on
The End of Copyright
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Absolutely correct. One of the great things about having a disc, even one that has copy protection on it, is that when you want to play the game, you throw the disc in and let it start. Okay, it has to search for the copy protection, but at least it doesn't require a mandatory connection to the Internet to do it.
Looking at it from a legal perspective, if you buy the game and then are not allowed to play it, doesn't that constitute grounds for a lawsuit? Here in the States there are clauses in most state/commonwealth laws that make illegal any actions that constitute "services unrendered" when the purchaser has continually acted in good faith. So, you - for whatever reason - lose your Internet connection or you're somewhere (such as with a laptop on international travel) where Internet access is not easy to get. Ooops! Sorry! You have to download a new, encrypted version in order to play! You pay, but you don't play! Why would "services unrendered" not apply? Ah, yes, such terms could be hidden in an EULA. Well, as Sony recently found out EULAs are not necessarily enough to cover deceptive or nefarious practices.
I'm not a lawyer, so what I've said might be baseless. Even if it is, I really despise anyone who thinks that it's fair game to potentially deny someone the ability to use a piece of software that is legally purchased and legally used in good faith. This is as despicable as when UbiSoft required all "Ghost Recon 2" users to "phone home" for authentication even for a LAN game that had no Internet traffic whatsoever. No Internet connection, no LAN game. Sorry, you lose. Once again, only the legal users were punished because the hackers knew how to get around it.
encrypted to discourage hacking
Oh, puh-lease! Good hackers will have decrypted code available in no time with any copy protection completely stripped off and available on Usenet. What's sad is that the game companies still persist on thinking that copy protection works.
Why don't they do something more practical -- like include value add items like the old "Ultima" series used to do? I remember that some of the things that always made people want to buy the game besides loyalty and just about everything about the game* were the cloth map of Britannia and the trinket relative to that particular chapter of the game. Granted, we don't all want t-shirts, but certainly there could be more tangible incentives to make people want to buy the game.
My idyllic world, I suppose.
* This does not necessarily include "Ultima 8: The Arcade Game" or "Ultima: Ascension - The Bug Ridden Piece of Sh!t With The Pathetic Storyline And Even Worse Ending That Insults The Ultima Franchise".
If anything, a more advanced version of this design could at least teach the mechanics of playing guitar. If you look at a lot of people who do air guitar, they don't have any real clue on the actual mechanics of playing. Just wiggle your fingers and miraculously the right note comes out. At least with something more advanced that teaches that the closer the fret, the higher the tone, you'd automatically be one step ahead of a lot of air guitarists, and that much closer to understanding the fundamentals when you have a real guitar in your hands.
Realistically, they *could* do it. Set a position for the strumming hand, press a pedal to set the position, set a position with the other hand for farthest fret, press a pedal to set the position, set a position for the innermost fret, press a pedal to set the position. Now the system has a way of determining the distance from the strumming hand and could simulate chords based on how far away the chord hand is from the strumming hand. For example, the farthest is C Maj, the next step in is D Maj, etc. and use the pedal for minor chords.
Again, it's just a thought and still very doable based on what they're doing. It would just take some intriguing algorithms and some steady hands during play (I'm talking about playing the air guitar, you perverts!) but it would make just about every primary chord accessible.
As a musician and computer geek, I'm really fascinated by how they do this. There are so many nuances to guitar playing that it will be intriguing to see how they can pull this off.
For example, does it analyze the angle/arc of the left hand to determine which strings are being stuck? That would suck to slightly arc your hand and suddenly you're playing the wrong string.
How does it determine where your left hand is in relation to the position of the neck? There are various neck sizes, after all.
The article implies that this is meant to simulate an electric guitar. With acoustic, you can strum on just about any position on the string and it will sound the same. With electric, the sound varies on the position due to the different pickups, each with its own tonal qualities, but each pickup is only an inch or so apart. Can this differentiate such minute details?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking at this as an "all or nothing" deal like a lot of people do on Slashdot. Oh, well, it can't do everything so it's teh suck! This is a very interesting start. I'm pondering more for what its potential could be more than what it can do right now. The whole cliché of taking baby steps first comes to mind.
Personally, I'd rather play the real thing. But at least this method could get people interested in guitar playing if they are too intimidated to buy a real one. And this won't result in painful calluses at the finger tips.:)
I still use a Pentium 233 running PC-DOS 7.0 and WFW 3.11. Why? Because there are a lot of great, older games, like Magic Carpet that do not run on modern systems. This is because either emulation does not work properly or the game did not have proper clock timing and cannot run properly on fast systems. But a native DOS/Windows environment running a CPU slowdown utility works incredibly well. (The geek in me also installed the WFW 3.11 TCP/IP stack. So, I can surf the Net with Netscape 4.07 on my broadband connection.) Laugh all that you want, but WFW on a 233 MHz system is incredibly fast.:)
I've sold dozens of old PCs ranging anywhere from 400 MHz Celerons to 866 MHz Pentium IIIs, all of them verified to run Linux without problems. In this case, I used SimplyMEPIS to determine compatibility. But when I needed to change hardware (which was very, VERY rare) in order to make Linux recognize all of the hardware, the system would sell every time even without a keyboard and mouse. (I could only get the PC itself.)
The one thing that I found as a constant among all of those systems is that 256 MB of RAM is what really made the difference between a lot of virtual memory paging and a relatively idle system. As long as the system had 256 MB, Linux ran great regardless of whether it was a 400 MHz Celeron or (more recently) a 1.2 GHz Celeron.
By far, the most common response from people who bought these systems was a "thank you" for offering such systems because they wanted to play with Linux, but didn't want to "risk" one of their existing systems. Having an inexpensive, older system that runs Linux (and runs it well) was exactly what they were looking for. (I know, I know, they could have always downloaded a live CD distro themselves, but we who are not afraid to take such initial steps are in the vast minority.)
It all comes down to a phrase that I've been using for years: No computer is truly obsolete until you no longer have use for it. As long as older PCs can do whatever people need it to do, there will always be people who want to "breathe life" into older computer.
Hell, even an old Sun SPARCstation LX running at 50 MHz was a great broadband PPPoE-dial-up/firewall for me for several months before I finally got an actual router.
No, you have them send you $100, then use it to buy an XBox $360. They're then going to be out $226, you only have to pay $299 for the premium edition, AND you can sell it back on eBay for $800 or more! (This is what one of them is selling for as I type this.)
it is also so that you are more inclined to take your job seriously and view yourself as a "professional"
Wow! Next time, give us a "pedantic psychobabble" warning before you say things like that!
How indescribably insulting to think that we take our jobs less seriously when wearing jeans! If that's the case, why doesn't every corporation require all employees to wear an Armani tux (cost not withstanding)?! I don't think any more clearly nor do I take my job more seriously with a polo shirt and khakis than I do in jeans an a T-shirt. Hell, I get more work done by putting on my headphones and listing to some classical CDs (or Christmas as the season approaches) than I do worrying about how professional I feel based on the way that the cotton on the outside of my flesh is designed.
On that particular note, however, I will say that based on my experience and others with whom I've spoken who have the same issue, the "professional" shirt and tie is actually very problematic to people, such as myself, who have very sensitive neck skin. Regardless of the shaving method used (including "none"), my neck will break out when the relatively stiff collar of a "shirt and tie" rubs against it throughout the day. So, in this case dressing "profiessionally" actually ends up being more distracting than not because of physical discomfort. Psychosomatic? Possibly. But regardless there is a negative effect due to "shirt and tie" requirements.
It's little wonder that you don't have the balls to post with a non-AC account.
The whole concept of "dress for success" is nothing more than shallow judgementalism. Who do you think a customer would rather work with? Some arrogant ass with a flippant attitude just because he's in a three-piece suit, or someone who is courteous and respectful but just so happens to be wearing jeans and a t-shirt? More than that, what does it matter, particularly if the person is in a position where they are not seen by the public or they are in a position that has little or no visual contact with customers? Are they performing their duties in a professional and courteous manner? Are they proving themselves to be valued employees who work efficiently and effectively? Yes? So, why isn't that what's important?
Could you imagine the actions (not to mention looks) towards any manager who insists that if you're "on-call" and get called at home, you need to get dressed before you dial into the network? Well, if that's a requirement at work where I don't meet the public, why isn't that a requirement at home where I don't meet the public? After all, it's doing the same job but jsut from a different location.
We don't lose IQ points for wearing jeans; we don't gain IQ points for putting on a three-piece suit. Frankly, any manager who stresses "professional" or "business casual" dress on employees who are not in a public relations role must look at the pointy-haired manager in Dilbert as his idol. I'm convinced of that.
Knowledge comes from the mind based on our education and experience; professionalism comes from the soul based on how well we treat others; the patterns and dyed cotton that we wear on the outside of our bodies in order to maintain an ancient, moral code is (or should be) irrelevant.
Fortunately, I work in an environment (in a corporation of over 10,000 employees) where management doesn't really care about dress code. As long as we come in and do what we get paid to do and put in that extra effort when necessary, they're content. Dress isn't even part of the employee review process. This is the biggest, NYSE-listed company of its kind in the U.S. with billions in revenue -- yet there is no dress code and the stock keeps increasing. Well, we must be doing something right -- without worrying about a dress code, either.
This should be no shock since you're posting AC but you're completely missing the point. The GP's statement (assuming that you're not the AC who posted the GP) is that all transmissions will be done digitally under a very, very arrogant aassumption that physical media will no longer be used. Until every, single home in the world gets a broadband connection directly to their home that can handle that kind of bandwidth, physical media will be required.
Whether or not FIOS/FTTH can handle the transmission is inconsequential. The issue is the elimation of physical media so that all customers can get all of their entertainment on-line. The GP is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the entertainment companies would need to have an incredibly massive infrastructure to make every piece of conceivable entertainment available to their customers on-demand. THAT is not going to happen any time soon, and it will certainly not happen in any of our lifetimes unless a bandwith, storage, and tranmission breakthrough occurs and become cost-effective.
Downloading with non-draconian DRM could certainly help, but it still won't matter until every square inch of the planet has a reliable connection that is faster than current speeds. This includes oceans as well since people do sail for days or weeks at a time. If they can't instantly get access to whatever movie they're in the mood for while they're at sea, then the GPs statement about physical media being eliminated out of obsolescense is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post. The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me? The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility. Whether the parents are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, agnostic, or even athiest, personal responsibility and the need to properly raise children in moral and ethical values is totally unrelated to their religious beliefs. All parents should be challenged to lead by example, not just Christian parents.
Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well. I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law. So, from that perspective we're in complete agreement; however, all parents should be teaching their kids right from wrong, regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - or the target of said teaching, be it video games, TV, movies, music, etc.
Can someone please explain to me why Microsoft feels the need to do this? Okay, application development is something that probably commands a higher salary in the U.S., but customer service?
I have a really big problem with companies that continually fork out technical support overseas. Regardless of location, just about everyone will need to be trained and learn the products that they have to support. Americans are no less capable of this than anywhere else. But keeping tech support in the U.S. has many benefits with respect to customer service that I think outweigh the cost savings.
Obviously, we have language difficulties when outsourcing. The Indian accent can be incredibly thick and very difficult to understand. I'm very adept at deciphering thick accents, but the Indian accent I find to be even more difficult at times than a thick, Scottish brogue. That certainly does not make the customer support experience any more pleasant.
Additionally, technical support nowadays is often nothing more than reading down a checklist of "did you do this?" Yes, I did before I called. "Well, let's try it again." *groan* Fine. "That didn't work either? Then let's try this." Face facts - anyone can do checklists for troubleshooting. Why is that being off-shored?
What's really infuriating about this announcement is that Microsoft is doing this as Louisiana and Mississippi are attempting to rebuild. You hear continual complaints about how companies are not moving back which can make sense from a manufacturing standpoint where large, capital investments of machinery and transportation need to be made; but from a services point-of-view, putting tech support and other business opportunities in Louisiana and Mississippi can still be cost-effective since those areas have incredibly low standards of living relative to the rest of the country. Then of course Microsoft would have the positive PR of (A) helping to rebuild an area that needs to be rebuilt, (B) having people who at least have an easier-to-understand (for the most part) accent on the other end of the line, (C) providing at least some type of jobs to an area that so desperately needs them, particularly now. Yes, I'm sure that hiring workers in LA/MS is still more expensive than India, but there's more to being a stable and respectable company than making the bottom line as large as possible. (I know, I know. Using "respectable" to represent Microsoft left a bad taste in my mouth, too.)
Am I being too idealistic? Well, perhaps. (Hey, at least I admit it.) But it just seems that Microsoft is missing a major opportunity here to do some good right here at home just so save some money that, frankly, it doesn't need to stay afloat. Hell, how large was its profit last year?
What a ridiculous reply. Absolutely ridiculous.
A. With good cables and equipment, the dreaded "analog" copy will be just as good as the digital copy. {Insert various analog/digital arguments here.}
B. DRM is still GONE. You made a CD via wave or MP3s files. Therefore, you made a duplicate of the CD without DRM. Ergo, DRM is defeated. No, it's not a precious 1:1 copy that you anti-analog types like to espouse; however, it is still a completely legitimate copy of that CD without DRM.
Sheesh.
Hey, let's not make TOO many demands of the current music industry. We want a resolution that's as least possible. Good music? Creative covers and liner notes? On the same CD? In the era a cookie-cutter, pop music? Good luck. ;)
Sony is really setting DRM and copy-protection back by several years. And with each annoucement, they are making more and more people dislike DRM. That's not a bad thing, I suppose, but they're making it painfully obvious that the only fix for this is the complete removal of the software for people's systems with instructions on how to prevent the software from being loaded again in the future. (Sadly, a huge number of people don't know about the Shift key as an autorun disabler.)
/. but it's become clear that negative reactions like DRM are not what keep CD sales going.
Frankly, I want to see a major mea culpa from Sony on just about every TV and radio station that targets the audience from all of those DRMed audio CDs complete with previous said instructions and a promise (that will be kept) that such DRM techniques will never be used in the future.
Considering that even artists themselves are starting to fight back against DRM stating that it does nothing but hurt the fans, which is true, it's about time for the heads of these companies to realize that Sony has crossed the line and that DRM for audio CDs is not only useless but can have dire consequences. I'm not going to use that silly "information wants to be free" dogma that is used too often on
Maybe they should - gasp! - try adding value that the customer wants and cannot get over the Internet through downloading rather than trying to add chains to a product that we want to legally buy. For example:
* Buy the CD and get the concert DVD for 1/2 price
* Buy the CD and get a discount on concert tickets and merchandise
* Buy the CD and accumulate points that can be redeemed for other items
Tactics like these, where items that cannot be downloaded are offered as incentive, is a much better alternative to increase sales than pissing off the customer base by nefarious methods such as DRM. This is particularly true because DRM can be defeated by one simple method: CD line out --> PC line in.
In short, make it worth my while to buy the CD and not download it. DRM, particularly the kind that Sony implemented, does the opposite.
Troll. You're a complete troll, and you're not very good at it, I might add.
You cannot compare new items to grey/aftermarket for many reasons, not the least of which is because of warranty. There is not one liquidator or after-market reseller that will offer anything like a 3 year warranty on parts and software for an item which obviously is not theirs. (I'm quite sure that no aftermarket reseller is owned by Sun.) To put those units under a three-year warranty with Sun, it might have to be recertified, which is not free, depending on your local sales rep's time of the month (that's a joke, folks), and it will definitely cost more to put that system under a maintenance contract for three years. So, yes, you can buy it cheaper, but putting it under maintenance contract is much more expensive than just buying an Ultra 20 outright. You clearly do not work with Sun hardware in a corporate environment on a regular basis or you'd know this.
Since the warranty is the major selling point of the Ultra 20, your attempt to downplay the Ultra 20 has no merit.
Back to troll school with you! Go! Bad troll! BAD!!
Considering that I've been working with Sun hardware for over 10 years, yes, I am fully aware of that.
Am I supposed to care? In fact, is anyone supposed to care? If you want the UltraSPARC line, Sun still has high-end workstations to take care of that as well as ALL of their mid-range and high-end servers. They're all UltraSPARC driven. I love this system for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the Ultra 20 supports my two favorite underdogs - Sun and AMD.
The hypocrisy on Slashdot is amazing. We all scream and cheer with "It's about time" at the announcement that Dell might sell AMD hardware. But with Sun, suddenly the attitude is "{nose in air} Well! It's NOT an UltraSPARC! Hrmph! Peasantry!"
Um ... The Ultra 20 is certified to run Red Hat.
So, because you can't customize it on their web site, you're snubbing them all together? Have you not heard of something called a telephone? You can order Sun systems to your customization. Try it. I know, it's one of those archiac, analog devices, but it works! Really!
Wow. How the Internet doth spoil the impatient.
Let people bitch about how you can build your own for a cheaper price. The Ultra 20 is still the better deal as far as I'm concerned.
* 3 year warranty on both hardware AND software (for which you have to pay extra with just about all other vendors)
* One of the most mature operating systems out there
* One of the most mature 64-bit operating systems out there (TRUE 64 bit)
* The only commercial system that is certified to run the three (arguably) most popular operating systems - Windows, Solaris, and Red Hat
Considering all of those factors, I still consider the Ultra 20 to be a hell of a bargain.
The only catch is that is it NOT $29.95 per month. You pay in three annual installments. I posted an open letter to Sun on a web site that I write for criticizing them for continually advertising $29.95 a month when they actually do not offer such financing. Jonathan Schwartz actually responded to it on his blog stating that financing and legal are the slowest segments of any corporation to respond to new ideas and that the Ultra 20's marketing was rushed. Just an FYI on that.
Still, I'd have that Ultra 20 replace my Sun Blade 100 at home in an instant if I had the finances at the moment.
Fuck reproduction! We fuck and suck for the orgasms!!!
;)
Don't be childish, Jenkins. Where did I say that it was for the sole purpose of propagation?
My point is that (until recently) people had to engage in sex in order to have children. The fact that we're here and that we have evidence of humans that go back millenia is proof that this is nothing unnatural and therefore should not be given such a spotlight or such a negative view. So, even if there was no pleasure attributed to it, it has to happen or the species disappears.
You need to lay off the cough syrup. Seriously. I'm worried about you, man.
Fair enough. I thought that he had something to do with politics, but the idea is still the same. He's just someone out there who is desperate for attention to make people think he's out for their interests. Unfortunately, we still have to keep an eye on him because his shrieking is obviously rubbing off on Hillary who has idientified this as her Political Spotlight du Jour.
What you described probably fits all of the politicians inside of the Washington beltway. All that this latest stunt proves is that she's a perfect fit for the Washington insiders who say and do what is necessary to garner votes and successfully fool their constituents.
Look, every so often the politicians make it seem as though there is some critical issue that demands their attention (and our tax dollars) so that we can feel good about ourselves. In the 1950s, we had the horrible Communists infiltrating America. Later on, we had Watergate, which happens all of the time except in this case the culprits were caught. In the 1980s we had Iran/Contra. In the 1990s (or was it 1980s) we had the evils of suggestive music where John Denver was accused of subliminally advocating drugs in "Rocky Mountain High". In the 1990s we briefly had violent games in the spotlight due to those two jackasses at Columbine. We also had to investiage whether Billy Boy screwed a government intern. Lots of money spent on that one.
And now we have video games back in the spotlight because of -- HORRORS! -- sex!! You know, that thing that every parent through th the history of man has performed in order to propagate the species? Obsessive, narcissistic, self-absorbed politicians on both sides of the ailse have once again found a rallying cry to make it look like they have our interests (and of course our children's interests - can't forget the children) at heart.
I'm very much right-of-center politically, but I can spot opportunistic politians on both sides of the aisle. And right now it's just about even. If you're going to include Hillary, you have to include that idiot Republican senator from Florida (Jack Thompson, I beleive) as well.
Your two examples aren't necesarily fair comparisons. You're talking about $15 for a program. That's not a real-world scenario in this case when we're talking about games that come out at $50-60 street price. $15 is well within the budget of most people, so if given a choice between shelling out $15 for a program or having to deal with some level of copy protection, I'm sure that most people would rather just pay the $15.
:)
You're also talking about a program that's required. The students had no choice but to use that software in order to complete assignments. We're talking about games here. There is absolutely no requirements to play games, unless you work for PC Gamer or something like that.
When you combine the two - a required program and a purchase price that is less expensive than a night out at the movies - the decision to buy it due to copy protection is a no brainer. When you're talking about a voluntary purchase of a game at a cost upwards of $50, that's a completely different scenario that will be looked at differently unless you're one of the fortunate who have lots of disposable income.
Now, in fairness, I've done exactly what you've said - purchased an additional copy for my secondary PC because it couldn't be copied, my ethics at the time prevented me from simply using a No-CD crack and pirated key, and I had the funds to purchase a second copy. But I'll bet that for every post that said that someone bought a second copy there are many more that either decided to go without or know how to get around it because the cost was prohibitive. The topic of current pricing for games is a whole other topic that is best left for another thread.
However, your primary example cannot be applied to what we're talking about unless every game out there happens to be available for $15. Good luck finding any new game of any value for close to that price if it comes from a major publisher. Independent gaming companies, possibly. EA and Ubi? Not a flippin' chance.
Absolutely correct. One of the great things about having a disc, even one that has copy protection on it, is that when you want to play the game, you throw the disc in and let it start. Okay, it has to search for the copy protection, but at least it doesn't require a mandatory connection to the Internet to do it.
Looking at it from a legal perspective, if you buy the game and then are not allowed to play it, doesn't that constitute grounds for a lawsuit? Here in the States there are clauses in most state/commonwealth laws that make illegal any actions that constitute "services unrendered" when the purchaser has continually acted in good faith. So, you - for whatever reason - lose your Internet connection or you're somewhere (such as with a laptop on international travel) where Internet access is not easy to get. Ooops! Sorry! You have to download a new, encrypted version in order to play! You pay, but you don't play! Why would "services unrendered" not apply? Ah, yes, such terms could be hidden in an EULA. Well, as Sony recently found out EULAs are not necessarily enough to cover deceptive or nefarious practices.
I'm not a lawyer, so what I've said might be baseless. Even if it is, I really despise anyone who thinks that it's fair game to potentially deny someone the ability to use a piece of software that is legally purchased and legally used in good faith. This is as despicable as when UbiSoft required all "Ghost Recon 2" users to "phone home" for authentication even for a LAN game that had no Internet traffic whatsoever. No Internet connection, no LAN game. Sorry, you lose. Once again, only the legal users were punished because the hackers knew how to get around it.
encrypted to discourage hacking
Oh, puh-lease! Good hackers will have decrypted code available in no time with any copy protection completely stripped off and available on Usenet. What's sad is that the game companies still persist on thinking that copy protection works.
Why don't they do something more practical -- like include value add items like the old "Ultima" series used to do? I remember that some of the things that always made people want to buy the game besides loyalty and just about everything about the game* were the cloth map of Britannia and the trinket relative to that particular chapter of the game. Granted, we don't all want t-shirts, but certainly there could be more tangible incentives to make people want to buy the game.
My idyllic world, I suppose.
* This does not necessarily include "Ultima 8: The Arcade Game" or "Ultima: Ascension - The Bug Ridden Piece of Sh!t With The Pathetic Storyline And Even Worse Ending That Insults The Ultima Franchise".
If anything, a more advanced version of this design could at least teach the mechanics of playing guitar. If you look at a lot of people who do air guitar, they don't have any real clue on the actual mechanics of playing. Just wiggle your fingers and miraculously the right note comes out. At least with something more advanced that teaches that the closer the fret, the higher the tone, you'd automatically be one step ahead of a lot of air guitarists, and that much closer to understanding the fundamentals when you have a real guitar in your hands.
Realistically, they *could* do it. Set a position for the strumming hand, press a pedal to set the position, set a position with the other hand for farthest fret, press a pedal to set the position, set a position for the innermost fret, press a pedal to set the position. Now the system has a way of determining the distance from the strumming hand and could simulate chords based on how far away the chord hand is from the strumming hand. For example, the farthest is C Maj, the next step in is D Maj, etc. and use the pedal for minor chords.
Again, it's just a thought and still very doable based on what they're doing. It would just take some intriguing algorithms and some steady hands during play (I'm talking about playing the air guitar, you perverts!) but it would make just about every primary chord accessible.
As a musician and computer geek, I'm really fascinated by how they do this. There are so many nuances to guitar playing that it will be intriguing to see how they can pull this off.
:)
For example, does it analyze the angle/arc of the left hand to determine which strings are being stuck? That would suck to slightly arc your hand and suddenly you're playing the wrong string.
How does it determine where your left hand is in relation to the position of the neck? There are various neck sizes, after all.
The article implies that this is meant to simulate an electric guitar. With acoustic, you can strum on just about any position on the string and it will sound the same. With electric, the sound varies on the position due to the different pickups, each with its own tonal qualities, but each pickup is only an inch or so apart. Can this differentiate such minute details?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking at this as an "all or nothing" deal like a lot of people do on Slashdot. Oh, well, it can't do everything so it's teh suck! This is a very interesting start. I'm pondering more for what its potential could be more than what it can do right now. The whole cliché of taking baby steps first comes to mind.
Personally, I'd rather play the real thing. But at least this method could get people interested in guitar playing if they are too intimidated to buy a real one. And this won't result in painful calluses at the finger tips.
I still use a Pentium 233 running PC-DOS 7.0 and WFW 3.11. Why? Because there are a lot of great, older games, like Magic Carpet that do not run on modern systems. This is because either emulation does not work properly or the game did not have proper clock timing and cannot run properly on fast systems. But a native DOS/Windows environment running a CPU slowdown utility works incredibly well. (The geek in me also installed the WFW 3.11 TCP/IP stack. So, I can surf the Net with Netscape 4.07 on my broadband connection.) Laugh all that you want, but WFW on a 233 MHz system is incredibly fast. :)
I've sold dozens of old PCs ranging anywhere from 400 MHz Celerons to 866 MHz Pentium IIIs, all of them verified to run Linux without problems. In this case, I used SimplyMEPIS to determine compatibility. But when I needed to change hardware (which was very, VERY rare) in order to make Linux recognize all of the hardware, the system would sell every time even without a keyboard and mouse. (I could only get the PC itself.)
The one thing that I found as a constant among all of those systems is that 256 MB of RAM is what really made the difference between a lot of virtual memory paging and a relatively idle system. As long as the system had 256 MB, Linux ran great regardless of whether it was a 400 MHz Celeron or (more recently) a 1.2 GHz Celeron.
By far, the most common response from people who bought these systems was a "thank you" for offering such systems because they wanted to play with Linux, but didn't want to "risk" one of their existing systems. Having an inexpensive, older system that runs Linux (and runs it well) was exactly what they were looking for. (I know, I know, they could have always downloaded a live CD distro themselves, but we who are not afraid to take such initial steps are in the vast minority.)
It all comes down to a phrase that I've been using for years: No computer is truly obsolete until you no longer have use for it. As long as older PCs can do whatever people need it to do, there will always be people who want to "breathe life" into older computer.
Hell, even an old Sun SPARCstation LX running at 50 MHz was a great broadband PPPoE-dial-up/firewall for me for several months before I finally got an actual router.
No, you have them send you $100, then use it to buy an XBox $360. They're then going to be out $226, you only have to pay $299 for the premium edition, AND you can sell it back on eBay for $800 or more! (This is what one of them is selling for as I type this.)
Cha-CHING!
Heh. Wrong coast, wrong business sector. But thank you for playing. We have some wonderful consolation prizes for you. :)
it is also so that you are more inclined to take your job seriously and view yourself as a "professional"
Wow! Next time, give us a "pedantic psychobabble" warning before you say things like that!
How indescribably insulting to think that we take our jobs less seriously when wearing jeans! If that's the case, why doesn't every corporation require all employees to wear an Armani tux (cost not withstanding)?! I don't think any more clearly nor do I take my job more seriously with a polo shirt and khakis than I do in jeans an a T-shirt. Hell, I get more work done by putting on my headphones and listing to some classical CDs (or Christmas as the season approaches) than I do worrying about how professional I feel based on the way that the cotton on the outside of my flesh is designed.
On that particular note, however, I will say that based on my experience and others with whom I've spoken who have the same issue, the "professional" shirt and tie is actually very problematic to people, such as myself, who have very sensitive neck skin. Regardless of the shaving method used (including "none"), my neck will break out when the relatively stiff collar of a "shirt and tie" rubs against it throughout the day. So, in this case dressing "profiessionally" actually ends up being more distracting than not because of physical discomfort. Psychosomatic? Possibly. But regardless there is a negative effect due to "shirt and tie" requirements.
It's little wonder that you don't have the balls to post with a non-AC account.
The whole concept of "dress for success" is nothing more than shallow judgementalism. Who do you think a customer would rather work with? Some arrogant ass with a flippant attitude just because he's in a three-piece suit, or someone who is courteous and respectful but just so happens to be wearing jeans and a t-shirt? More than that, what does it matter, particularly if the person is in a position where they are not seen by the public or they are in a position that has little or no visual contact with customers? Are they performing their duties in a professional and courteous manner? Are they proving themselves to be valued employees who work efficiently and effectively? Yes? So, why isn't that what's important?
Could you imagine the actions (not to mention looks) towards any manager who insists that if you're "on-call" and get called at home, you need to get dressed before you dial into the network? Well, if that's a requirement at work where I don't meet the public, why isn't that a requirement at home where I don't meet the public? After all, it's doing the same job but jsut from a different location.
We don't lose IQ points for wearing jeans; we don't gain IQ points for putting on a three-piece suit. Frankly, any manager who stresses "professional" or "business casual" dress on employees who are not in a public relations role must look at the pointy-haired manager in Dilbert as his idol. I'm convinced of that.
Knowledge comes from the mind based on our education and experience; professionalism comes from the soul based on how well we treat others; the patterns and dyed cotton that we wear on the outside of our bodies in order to maintain an ancient, moral code is (or should be) irrelevant.
Fortunately, I work in an environment (in a corporation of over 10,000 employees) where management doesn't really care about dress code. As long as we come in and do what we get paid to do and put in that extra effort when necessary, they're content. Dress isn't even part of the employee review process. This is the biggest, NYSE-listed company of its kind in the U.S. with billions in revenue -- yet there is no dress code and the stock keeps increasing. Well, we must be doing something right -- without worrying about a dress code, either.
6Gb cable connection? Well, pretending you actually mean 6Gb for a moment..
:)
Ah, damn it. I didn't catch that. Oh, well.
This should be no shock since you're posting AC but you're completely missing the point. The GP's statement (assuming that you're not the AC who posted the GP) is that all transmissions will be done digitally under a very, very arrogant aassumption that physical media will no longer be used. Until every, single home in the world gets a broadband connection directly to their home that can handle that kind of bandwidth, physical media will be required.
Whether or not FIOS/FTTH can handle the transmission is inconsequential. The issue is the elimation of physical media so that all customers can get all of their entertainment on-line. The GP is also conveniently ignoring the fact that the entertainment companies would need to have an incredibly massive infrastructure to make every piece of conceivable entertainment available to their customers on-demand. THAT is not going to happen any time soon, and it will certainly not happen in any of our lifetimes unless a bandwith, storage, and tranmission breakthrough occurs and become cost-effective.
Downloading with non-draconian DRM could certainly help, but it still won't matter until every square inch of the planet has a reliable connection that is faster than current speeds. This includes oceans as well since people do sail for days or weeks at a time. If they can't instantly get access to whatever movie they're in the mood for while they're at sea, then the GPs statement about physical media being eliminated out of obsolescense is nonsense.