Haven't tried Rock Band 3. I mainly bought rocksmith as it let me use the guitar I already have.
I _suspect_ the Rock Band 3 experience is probably a little better due to actually having sensors in the fret board. There are some things rocksmith can't pull off due to getting all it's data purely from sound. You can play different forms of chords and get away with it for instance.
That said, I was quite impressed with how much stuff they do pull off. What they have works damn near flawlessly, and the sound modeling is impressive (it's worth it just for the software amp.. then again I've used rakarrack as a practice amp for a while so maybe my standards are low).
The game itself doesn't have the same "game" feel as I imagine rockband does. You play over very generic crowd visuals and don't see your own character. You can't "fail" a song.. there's no "overdrive" or such. It feels more like a learning tool with some game elements than a game with some learning elements.
Ultimately I imagine you get what you put into it. If you go into it with the intention of learning or improving, but "cheat" based on limitations of the technology.. why even bother.
I know there isn't some guy peering through my search history and reading my email.. having a chuckle at my expense. It's an algorithm counting the number of times I said "guitar" over the last few years, matching it up in some tables, and showing me ads for rocksmith (which btw I bought and is actually pretty neat.. sometimes web ads are effective!).
If they start selling the data to choicepoint, then it's a different story.
When you sign up for an account, you agree to their privacy policy and TOS, which spells out how they will use your data.
I guess on products where you don't need an account (like search) they could prompt you or something (vice the little link to their terms and privacy policy at the bottom) but beyond that, what would you look for in "requiring user consent"?
I actually assumed they already did this (used your email to determine what ads you saw on search and such).
Either way, personally it doesn’t bug me too much. If they were selling the information it might.. but as long as they keep it in house and it’s all being processed by automated algorithms I’ve got no qualms.
That’s not to say I don’t recognize other people might have issues with this, and I definitely don’t subscribe to the whole “if you have nothing to hide” nonsense. This is just my personal view. Some people want privacy and they don’t (nor should they) need a reason.
Oh I totally get why it makes sense for the CRTC to make such statements (as completely backwards as they come across).
But the point is, from my vantage, the CRTC is all about making insane decisions that hurt Canadians for a goal that they probably don't even understand (what the hell is "Canadian culture" in the context of our media anyway.. I'm Canadian and I only vaguely know... is it Red Green!).
Seeing them do something that isn't along their traditional approach of "my shoes don't fit any more so I'm gonna saw off 3 of my toes" is startling.
As a Canadian this action on the part of the CRTC would seem in my benefit. This is the CRTC where just yesterday the former head was whining about how the Internet is making it hard for them to control what Canadians watch. This is the CRTC that wanted to give us caps which may have been appropriate in 1996. That wanted to effectively end video streaming in Canada. This is practically unheard of.
I imagine it has something to do with population density. We are kinda spread out up here.. makes it hard to have competing services given the cost of infrastructure compared to the number of potential customers.
The internet didn't exist for most of human history.
The ability to infinitely copy something at almost no cost didn’t exist for most of human history.
The ability to distribute something to thousands of people you have never met and have no prior relationship with also didn’t exist for most of human history.
This is the kind of rational thinking I was talking about above. Cut out the patents on obvious stuff, cut down the duration to something reasonable, and it's actually not a terrible system. The "everything is public domain" approach is a nice pipe dream, but fails the reality test.
Both sides are full of unrealistic extremists and it's getting us nowhere. The digital world is very different in regards the reality of property. For the same reason that traditional property rules don’t apply well (or at all), the kind of logic you are applying doesn’t either.
We need rational thinking where both sides meet half way, not two sides screaming their extremist views at each other... especially as one side has a lot more influence to wield that the other.
Their whole approach has always followed this kind of backwards logic.
Hell, the core of their efforts to "preserve canadian culture" has been to basically force it on Canadians whether they like it or not, and do everything they possibly can to limit the amount of foreign content.
The problem with Canadian content is the same general problem with Canadian medicine. You can make _way_ more money down in the US, so why would you stay here (beyond patriotism).. so a lot of our best talent ends up across the border. Lots of good Canadian actors... they just act in American films. Not saying we don't have _some_ talented folks who stay here for various reasons.. but we just don't have the establishment in place required to compete with US media.
This battle will probably fail.. but I think this is how the war is ultimately going to be won..
Not by some massive project, but with little nibbles over a long period of time. Stuff like this shows that more and more people are getting fed up. They fail and someone else tries, then someone else, etc.. eventually you will see something persistent, and it will gradually get more and more share until it is a serious competitor, and hopefully, a replacement for the existing media establishment.
Plus it doesn't require the user to figure out which of several varients they need (A, D, I, single/dual link?).. just plug the thing in and don't think about it.
I think this is where DVI failed. They made the connector too smart, and non-geeks got confused.
DVI-D, DVI-A, and DVI-I.. plus "single link" and "dual link" thrown in for good measure, and different cables supporing subsets of those and adapters and a variety of "this works with that, but not this other thing".
HDMI is HDMI.. you plug it in and not worry about whether you are using the right mode / cable for your setup.
Didn't say it wasn't important, it's just not something I've chosen to actively advocate for.
People only have a certain amount of time and energy to dedicate for pushing their views. I don't feel guilty spending my time fighting for stuff I personally feel strongly about despite there being more important issues. It would be like grabbing a doctor who's working on ALS and saying "cancer is a much bigger problem.. you should go work on that instead."
Then again, like most people, I prioritize my views into:
- stuff I don’t even have an opinion on - stuff I have an opinion on but don’t feel strongly enough about to right for - stuff that I take very seriously and would fight for
When it comes to free speech, I generally fall into the middle one. It’s just not one of the issues I take an active role in.
Everyone can’t be strongly opinioned above everything. There are so many important issues in this world that we can’t actively defend our opinions on everything we have to choose the stuff that really matters to us, and let other differently motivated people advocate the stuff that really matters to them.
I get that free speech can't be selective. I get that for me to have the ability to say something, no matter how unpopular, others need to be able to do the same.
My (admittedly poorly phrased) point was that while in principle I totally agree this guy should be left alone, in practice my views on racism clash against my views on free speech and I find it hard to stand up and say "hey, let the man speak!".
I do agree with this. From the comments I got I suspect my point was poorly phrased and/or miss-understood.
I get that free speech can't be a selective thing and still be effective. If I want to be able to say anything, no matter how unpopular, I accept that others have to be able to do the same.
My point was that while in principle I'm on board, in practice my personal views on racism make it hard for me to defend this type of thing.
I have a hard time getting worked up over stuff like this.
I mean, I'm all for free speach and I get that this means having to hear things you don't want to hear (otherwise who decides where the line is).. however racism in this day and age is just astounding and I have a hard time defending a jackass.
Slashdot Mirror
I think much like McAfee, they don't.
Dell or whoever they buy the computer from does it for them, and makes it insanely painful to remove.
Haven't tried Rock Band 3. I mainly bought rocksmith as it let me use the guitar I already have.
I _suspect_ the Rock Band 3 experience is probably a little better due to actually having sensors in the fret board. There are some things rocksmith can't pull off due to getting all it's data purely from sound. You can play different forms of chords and get away with it for instance.
That said, I was quite impressed with how much stuff they do pull off. What they have works damn near flawlessly, and the sound modeling is impressive (it's worth it just for the software amp .. then again I've used rakarrack as a practice amp for a while so maybe my standards are low).
The game itself doesn't have the same "game" feel as I imagine rockband does. You play over very generic crowd visuals and don't see your own character. You can't "fail" a song .. there's no "overdrive" or such. It feels more like a learning tool with some game elements than a game with some learning elements.
Ultimately I imagine you get what you put into it. If you go into it with the intention of learning or improving, but "cheat" based on limitations of the technology.. why even bother.
Kind of my point.
I know there isn't some guy peering through my search history and reading my email.. having a chuckle at my expense. It's an algorithm counting the number of times I said "guitar" over the last few years, matching it up in some tables, and showing me ads for rocksmith (which btw I bought and is actually pretty neat.. sometimes web ads are effective!).
If they start selling the data to choicepoint, then it's a different story.
I think you kind of do consent to it.
When you sign up for an account, you agree to their privacy policy and TOS, which spells out how they will use your data.
I guess on products where you don't need an account (like search) they could prompt you or something (vice the little link to their terms and privacy policy at the bottom) but beyond that, what would you look for in "requiring user consent"?
I actually assumed they already did this (used your email to determine what ads you saw on search and such).
Either way, personally it doesn’t bug me too much. If they were selling the information it might.. but as long as they keep it in house and it’s all being processed by automated algorithms I’ve got no qualms.
That’s not to say I don’t recognize other people might have issues with this, and I definitely don’t subscribe to the whole “if you have nothing to hide” nonsense. This is just my personal view. Some people want privacy and they don’t (nor should they) need a reason.
Oh I totally get why it makes sense for the CRTC to make such statements (as completely backwards as they come across).
But the point is, from my vantage, the CRTC is all about making insane decisions that hurt Canadians for a goal that they probably don't even understand (what the hell is "Canadian culture" in the context of our media anyway .. I'm Canadian and I only vaguely know... is it Red Green!).
Seeing them do something that isn't along their traditional approach of "my shoes don't fit any more so I'm gonna saw off 3 of my toes" is startling.
Totally this.
As a Canadian this action on the part of the CRTC would seem in my benefit. This is the CRTC where just yesterday the former head was whining about how the Internet is making it hard for them to control what Canadians watch. This is the CRTC that wanted to give us caps which may have been appropriate in 1996. That wanted to effectively end video streaming in Canada. This is practically unheard of.
I imagine it has something to do with population density. We are kinda spread out up here.. makes it hard to have competing services given the cost of infrastructure compared to the number of potential customers.
The CRTC...
Our CRTC?
I know this comment is pointless.. but I just don't know what to say.. I'm kind of scared..
We have a three party system here in Canada (well, you could argue 4 prior to the previous election) and it's not much better.
Having multiple options is generally useless when they all kind of point in the same general direction.
The choice generally comes down to who you think is going to be the gentlest once they've got you over the barrel.
I agree with the sentiment, but lets face it, it’s probably us that’s going to be over the barrel yet again.
The internet didn't exist for most of human history.
The ability to infinitely copy something at almost no cost didn’t exist for most of human history.
The ability to distribute something to thousands of people you have never met and have no prior relationship with also didn’t exist for most of human history.
And so on...
Thank you!
This is the kind of rational thinking I was talking about above. Cut out the patents on obvious stuff, cut down the duration to something reasonable, and it's actually not a terrible system. The "everything is public domain" approach is a nice pipe dream, but fails the reality test.
This attitude is just part of the problem.
Both sides are full of unrealistic extremists and it's getting us nowhere. The digital world is very different in regards the reality of property. For the same reason that traditional property rules don’t apply well (or at all), the kind of logic you are applying doesn’t either.
We need rational thinking where both sides meet half way, not two sides screaming their extremist views at each other... especially as one side has a lot more influence to wield that the other.
Their whole approach has always followed this kind of backwards logic.
Hell, the core of their efforts to "preserve canadian culture" has been to basically force it on Canadians whether they like it or not, and do everything they possibly can to limit the amount of foreign content.
The problem with Canadian content is the same general problem with Canadian medicine. You can make _way_ more money down in the US, so why would you stay here (beyond patriotism) .. so a lot of our best talent ends up across the border. Lots of good Canadian actors... they just act in American films. Not saying we don't have _some_ talented folks who stay here for various reasons.. but we just don't have the establishment in place required to compete with US media.
This battle will probably fail.. but I think this is how the war is ultimately going to be won..
Not by some massive project, but with little nibbles over a long period of time. Stuff like this shows that more and more people are getting fed up. They fail and someone else tries, then someone else, etc.. eventually you will see something persistent, and it will gradually get more and more share until it is a serious competitor, and hopefully, a replacement for the existing media establishment.
Sigh.. good to see there were some good lessons learnt :S
Plus it doesn't require the user to figure out which of several varients they need (A, D, I, single/dual link?) .. just plug the thing in and don't think about it.
I think this is where DVI failed. They made the connector too smart, and non-geeks got confused.
DVI was confusing to non-geeks.
You had, what..
DVI-D, DVI-A, and DVI-I .. plus "single link" and "dual link" thrown in for good measure, and different cables supporing subsets of those and adapters and a variety of "this works with that, but not this other thing".
HDMI is HDMI .. you plug it in and not worry about whether you are using the right mode / cable for your setup.
Didn't say it wasn't important, it's just not something I've chosen to actively advocate for.
People only have a certain amount of time and energy to dedicate for pushing their views. I don't feel guilty spending my time fighting for stuff I personally feel strongly about despite there being more important issues. It would be like grabbing a doctor who's working on ALS and saying "cancer is a much bigger problem.. you should go work on that instead."
I can accept that.
Then again, like most people, I prioritize my views into:
- stuff I don’t even have an opinion on
- stuff I have an opinion on but don’t feel strongly enough about to right for
- stuff that I take very seriously and would fight for
When it comes to free speech, I generally fall into the middle one. It’s just not one of the issues I take an active role in.
Everyone can’t be strongly opinioned above everything. There are so many important issues in this world that we can’t actively defend our opinions on everything we have to choose the stuff that really matters to us, and let other differently motivated people advocate the stuff that really matters to them.
That's why I agree there can't be a line.
I get that free speech can't be selective. I get that for me to have the ability to say something, no matter how unpopular, others need to be able to do the same.
My (admittedly poorly phrased) point was that while in principle I totally agree this guy should be left alone, in practice my views on racism clash against my views on free speech and I find it hard to stand up and say "hey, let the man speak!".
I do agree with this. From the comments I got I suspect my point was poorly phrased and/or miss-understood.
I get that free speech can't be a selective thing and still be effective. If I want to be able to say anything, no matter how unpopular, I accept that others have to be able to do the same.
My point was that while in principle I'm on board, in practice my personal views on racism make it hard for me to defend this type of thing.
My point was that while I understand free speech can't be a selective thing, in practice it's still hard for me to get too upset over stuff like this.
I have a hard time getting worked up over stuff like this.
I mean, I'm all for free speach and I get that this means having to hear things you don't want to hear (otherwise who decides where the line is).. however racism in this day and age is just astounding and I have a hard time defending a jackass.