Holy shallow-view, Batman! Do you really think the cell phone company is eating the cost of your phone? Do you honestly believe that you don't pay an extra penny or more per month to help pay for your phone? Do you honestly think that if you could walk away from a lousy company to go to another that the first company wouldn't try to improve, either through better service or lower prices? Do you really think that phone manufacturers aren't already raising the prices of their phones knowing that the cell companies are going to subsidize the costs (and will do so through your monthly payments)?
There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Cell phone contracts force you into bad service with a locked phone that you _will_ pay full price for anyway, but an even higher full price than if the "subsidy" didn't exist.
Do I want to play MSRP for phones? Of course I do. Does that sound silly to you? Probably, so I'll explain. Let's suppose we live in a world where cell phone contracts and phone locking didn't exist. You say that there would then be no incentive for the carriers to subsidize the cost of the phone. This is true, but then, they would have no need to. A cell phone manufacturer would then need to make their phone affordable to consumers. Right now, if I was Samsung/Motorola/etc. I would be jacking the price of my phones up knowing that the consumer won't ever see that price. The consumer will always see $100/50/free or whatever and not care that the real cost of the phone is $500. If the manufacturer had to sell directly to the consumer, then they would know they can't sell at that price. As a service provider I wouldn't care either, because I just add 10 cents to each contract holders monthly bill and cover the costs that way.
At the risk of starting an offtopic flamewar about medical insurance, the same thing is occuring there. When insurance covers you such that you only pay a $25 copay to see a doctor, you are shielded from the doctor charging you $500 for your 30 minute visit. Granted, you will pay more for your premiums over time, but that's a small monthly fee that you know you can't get rid because you need insurance. Same thing with the phone companies. Sure you get the small price of the phone up front, but now you are stuck with a locked phone and a contract. If that phone company starts to turn sour, you can either put up with it for the remainder of your contract, or bail at a significant price.
Option 1:
Cheap, locked phones
That raise the price of your monthly contract to cover the subsidy (you didn't actually think the phone company was being that kind did you?)
Limited freedom to move around when the phone company starts dinking with you
Option 2:
Slightly more upfront cost for a phone
Complete freedom to do with the phone what you want
Complete ability to leave your phone company as you suit
Thus more competition and lowered monthly prices and better options as phone companies actually have to compete to get you to stay with them
What other way could I take it? The poster said it was more work to erase the pre-installed OS. It's no more work to "erase" a pre-installed OS and install another, then it is to just install an OS, unless you really mean to wipe the hard drive first.
Nothing more please, its just more work for us erasing it.
Unless you are extremely paranoid and need to do some serious disk erasage, what on earth are you spending time erasing? Just install whatever OS you planned on installing as if there was nothing on the hard drive. Wait, if you were that paranoid, you would do the same with a brand new HDD anyway. So seriously, what are you erasing?
For me, pervasive saving in PC games is what turned me off most of the platform. It changes the gameplay from a smooth flow to a chopped-up sequence of obsessive re-loads to get through the next fight as well as possible.
You could just play through rather than reloading. You know that right? Just because an option is there, you don't have to take it.
TrueCrypt's plausible deniability is more than that. With it you can have two encrypted volumes within the same volume only with different keys. If you are asked for a key, you give them one. They unencrypt the volume you gave them a key for and they find nothing. More information (and probably a much better description) here.
I hate to rain on Brown's parade but that White's Illusion thing is just wrong. I copied the image into an image editor, cut out a piece of A and dragged it over right next to B. A is definitely darker.
I did that a couple of times. Some friends wanted to have a Halo party. So we had 11 people on 3 Xbox's. That was great. A 640x480 screen divided by 4. I got a whopping 320x240 area to see the game. Did I mention it was interlaced? Woohoo. Let me tell you, 320x240 with only half of the 240 showing up half the time is a great way to play.
But now both the PS3 and the Xbox360 can be in high def. So now we have 1920x1080 with progressive scan. So you get 4 people on that and it's much better than before. Then again, it's still only 960x540. So, while it is convenient to have 4 people on one box, the idea that you are doing so in a resolution that's over a decade old* kinda sucks.
*I doubt very many people had that exact resolution 10 years ago, but it's pretty close to 800x600, different aspect ratio notwithstanding.
Are you saying you should be able to force businesses to sell AO games? Bullshit. It's their store, their shelves, their property, their prerogative, their BUSINESS.
I work in the industry. The company I work for has released two titles while I've been here and I worked on one of them. I've done crunch mode. It wasn't the greatest thing, but it wasn't any worse than cramming for finals in college. With this job I was able to buy a new house, a new car, etc., etc., so the pay isn't bad either. Most the time it's 40 hrs/week except during crunch times, which doesn't last longer than a couple of weeks. We were also given healthy bonuses for any over time work we did.
I also worked at a large software company that had nothing to do with games. Worked there for over two years as a tester. During that time I saw developers work longer hours than what I've done here. In other words, if you develop software for a living, it's what the industry expects out of you. You get over it. Some expect it more than others, but video game developers don't have to have it any worse than any where else. It all boils down to who you work for.
This is a case of the MPAA asking for stuff in RAM to be logged. The MPAA is the same group who says that the keys used in their DRM schemes are illegal to copy, even though those keys are in RAM. So I say let them log stuff in RAM, up to and including keys used in DRM schemes. See how that would come back to bite the MPAA (and the RIAA, etc.)? Maybe it wasn't particularly funny, but I certainly was not seriously suggesting that everything in RAM should be logged. That would be stupid, just like this case is.
You need to read what I wrote. Specifically these parts:
The problem is that the numbers appear to be only for North America
world-wide, the PS3 is outselling the 360
the PS3 was outselling the 360 about 5 to 1 [in Japan]
the PS3 is selling at the same pace as the 360 was [worldwide] for the same point in its lifetime
The you say:
where there's no home-turf advantage
The PS3, in it's home-turf, was outselling the 360 about 5 to 1, but since the price drop that has been closer to 10 to 1. On the other hand, the 360, in its home-turf, rarely sells double what the PS3 has. For the rest of the world, the PS3 has consistently outsold the 360 weekly. In North America, when Sony dropped the PS3's price, it rose above the 360, then the 360 price was dropped and it barely got ahead again. In other words, considering only the PS3 and the 360, the PS3 is killing on its home-turf, the 360 is ahead but not by much on its home-turf, and on neither's home-turf, the PS3 is doing better.
I should mention that I'm talking weekly and monthly sales here, not overall.
The problem is that the numbers appear to be only for North America. However, if you go world-wide, the PS3 is outselling the 360. Consider Japan. A few months or so ago there was news that the Wii was outselling the PS3 5 to 1 in Japan. What they didn't mention was that the PS3 was outselling the 360 about 5 to 1 there as well, which more than makes up for the 11k difference in North America. The PS3 is also outselling the 360 in the rest of the world, which also makes up for that 11k difference. So MS has something to cheer for in America I suppose.
Looking at the past, the PS3 is selling at the same pace as the 360 was for the same point in its lifetime (remember, the 360 had an entire year with no next-gen competition). That actually looks pretty poor. The PS3 has to compete with the Wii and the 360 in addition to the PS2, whereas the 360 only had to compete against the PS2. Looking into the future, the 360 has some highly anticipated games coming out before the holidays, afterwards it has pretty much nothing. And even those titles are mostly just FPSs and some suspect they won't move much consoles because Gears of War already attracted that player demographic. Most of the anticipated titles for the PS3 come next year.
Then we look at other factors. News is really starting to spread about the RROD and other stories about the crappy quality of the 360. Even some media outlets are picking up on it, which isn't good for MS, despite their increase of the warranty.
The way the Wii is going might make it a moot point in any case about the 360 and the PS3 anyway. The Wii sold in 9 months what the 360 did in 21 months. It selling more than twice as fast, it is still in its first year, and it still has some anticipated games for it in the near and far future. Some analysts are predicting anywhere from 17-20 million Wiis sold by the end of this year. It has already shown to be the fastest selling video game device (handhelds and consoles included) of all time, and that is why it is having the supply problems (though some suspect that Nintendo is hording for the holidays).
And it is not Walmart that is editing the "art" either. They say they won't sell it, the labels want it sold at Walmart, and so the labels and the artists change the "art." You can either have a problem with the artist being willing to change his art, or you can have a problem with the artist selling his rights to the label so that the label can change the art, but in either case your beef is with the artist.
The only thing I worry about in terms of AI is humans just accepting whatever answer the computer gives them. I couldn't find a link to it but a year or so ago was a case where someone was sent a property tax bill for millions of dollars even though no one else in the neighborhood's tax was that high, and even though their property tax was only in the very low thousands for years before that. Did anyone bother to double check? No, the computer said it, thus it must be correct. People are continuously trusting computers despite common sense not to. I worry that someday people will be convinced of the absolute infallibility of computers and do what ever it tells them to. It looks like that day might have already passed.
I got a phone call from my car insurance people asking me to take a quick survey. In the middle of it I asked the guy if he was a computer. He said no, but I am not sure I believe him. If he really was a computer, I wouldn't call him intelligent. But if he really was a person, then I'd certainly call it "monotone-voice-read-the-script-and show-no-signs-of-personality."
Slashdot Mirror
Holy shallow-view, Batman! Do you really think the cell phone company is eating the cost of your phone? Do you honestly believe that you don't pay an extra penny or more per month to help pay for your phone? Do you honestly think that if you could walk away from a lousy company to go to another that the first company wouldn't try to improve, either through better service or lower prices? Do you really think that phone manufacturers aren't already raising the prices of their phones knowing that the cell companies are going to subsidize the costs (and will do so through your monthly payments)?
There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Cell phone contracts force you into bad service with a locked phone that you _will_ pay full price for anyway, but an even higher full price than if the "subsidy" didn't exist.
At the risk of starting an offtopic flamewar about medical insurance, the same thing is occuring there. When insurance covers you such that you only pay a $25 copay to see a doctor, you are shielded from the doctor charging you $500 for your 30 minute visit. Granted, you will pay more for your premiums over time, but that's a small monthly fee that you know you can't get rid because you need insurance. Same thing with the phone companies. Sure you get the small price of the phone up front, but now you are stuck with a locked phone and a contract. If that phone company starts to turn sour, you can either put up with it for the remainder of your contract, or bail at a significant price.
Option 1:
- Cheap, locked phones
- That raise the price of your monthly contract to cover the subsidy (you didn't actually think the phone company was being that kind did you?)
- Limited freedom to move around when the phone company starts dinking with you
Option 2:I'm curious as to why you artificially terminate each line. Are you trying to write poetry?
What other way could I take it? The poster said it was more work to erase the pre-installed OS. It's no more work to "erase" a pre-installed OS and install another, then it is to just install an OS, unless you really mean to wipe the hard drive first.
Inbox: 0 New messages, 0 Old messages
Oh crap, nobody loves me.
Within 7 months of the Xbox's release, any games you had for it were probably exclusive.
Just sayin'.
TrueCrypt's plausible deniability is more than that. With it you can have two encrypted volumes within the same volume only with different keys. If you are asked for a key, you give them one. They unencrypt the volume you gave them a key for and they find nothing. More information (and probably a much better description) here.
The mistake that bothers me the most is the misuse of 'of.' I see "could of," "would of," and "should of" so much. It doesn't even make sense.
I hate to rain on Brown's parade but that White's Illusion thing is just wrong. I copied the image into an image editor, cut out a piece of A and dragged it over right next to B. A is definitely darker.
I did that a couple of times. Some friends wanted to have a Halo party. So we had 11 people on 3 Xbox's. That was great. A 640x480 screen divided by 4. I got a whopping 320x240 area to see the game. Did I mention it was interlaced? Woohoo. Let me tell you, 320x240 with only half of the 240 showing up half the time is a great way to play.
But now both the PS3 and the Xbox360 can be in high def. So now we have 1920x1080 with progressive scan. So you get 4 people on that and it's much better than before. Then again, it's still only 960x540. So, while it is convenient to have 4 people on one box, the idea that you are doing so in a resolution that's over a decade old* kinda sucks.
*I doubt very many people had that exact resolution 10 years ago, but it's pretty close to 800x600, different aspect ratio notwithstanding.
You must be old. I've seen the smiley face in the King James Version of the Bible.
I work in the industry. The company I work for has released two titles while I've been here and I worked on one of them. I've done crunch mode. It wasn't the greatest thing, but it wasn't any worse than cramming for finals in college. With this job I was able to buy a new house, a new car, etc., etc., so the pay isn't bad either. Most the time it's 40 hrs/week except during crunch times, which doesn't last longer than a couple of weeks. We were also given healthy bonuses for any over time work we did.
I also worked at a large software company that had nothing to do with games. Worked there for over two years as a tester. During that time I saw developers work longer hours than what I've done here. In other words, if you develop software for a living, it's what the industry expects out of you. You get over it. Some expect it more than others, but video game developers don't have to have it any worse than any where else. It all boils down to who you work for.
This is a case of the MPAA asking for stuff in RAM to be logged. The MPAA is the same group who says that the keys used in their DRM schemes are illegal to copy, even though those keys are in RAM. So I say let them log stuff in RAM, up to and including keys used in DRM schemes. See how that would come back to bite the MPAA (and the RIAA, etc.)? Maybe it wasn't particularly funny, but I certainly was not seriously suggesting that everything in RAM should be logged. That would be stupid, just like this case is.
The you say: The PS3, in it's home-turf, was outselling the 360 about 5 to 1, but since the price drop that has been closer to 10 to 1. On the other hand, the 360, in its home-turf, rarely sells double what the PS3 has. For the rest of the world, the PS3 has consistently outsold the 360 weekly. In North America, when Sony dropped the PS3's price, it rose above the 360, then the 360 price was dropped and it barely got ahead again. In other words, considering only the PS3 and the 360, the PS3 is killing on its home-turf, the 360 is ahead but not by much on its home-turf, and on neither's home-turf, the PS3 is doing better.
I should mention that I'm talking weekly and monthly sales here, not overall.
The problem is that the numbers appear to be only for North America. However, if you go world-wide, the PS3 is outselling the 360. Consider Japan. A few months or so ago there was news that the Wii was outselling the PS3 5 to 1 in Japan. What they didn't mention was that the PS3 was outselling the 360 about 5 to 1 there as well, which more than makes up for the 11k difference in North America. The PS3 is also outselling the 360 in the rest of the world, which also makes up for that 11k difference. So MS has something to cheer for in America I suppose.
Looking at the past, the PS3 is selling at the same pace as the 360 was for the same point in its lifetime (remember, the 360 had an entire year with no next-gen competition). That actually looks pretty poor. The PS3 has to compete with the Wii and the 360 in addition to the PS2, whereas the 360 only had to compete against the PS2. Looking into the future, the 360 has some highly anticipated games coming out before the holidays, afterwards it has pretty much nothing. And even those titles are mostly just FPSs and some suspect they won't move much consoles because Gears of War already attracted that player demographic. Most of the anticipated titles for the PS3 come next year.
Then we look at other factors. News is really starting to spread about the RROD and other stories about the crappy quality of the 360. Even some media outlets are picking up on it, which isn't good for MS, despite their increase of the warranty.
The way the Wii is going might make it a moot point in any case about the 360 and the PS3 anyway. The Wii sold in 9 months what the 360 did in 21 months. It selling more than twice as fast, it is still in its first year, and it still has some anticipated games for it in the near and far future. Some analysts are predicting anywhere from 17-20 million Wiis sold by the end of this year. It has already shown to be the fastest selling video game device (handhelds and consoles included) of all time, and that is why it is having the supply problems (though some suspect that Nintendo is hording for the holidays).
I will admit to you that I am baffled as to why the RIAA is involved in a court case concerning the downloading of a movie.
And it is not Walmart that is editing the "art" either. They say they won't sell it, the labels want it sold at Walmart, and so the labels and the artists change the "art." You can either have a problem with the artist being willing to change his art, or you can have a problem with the artist selling his rights to the label so that the label can change the art, but in either case your beef is with the artist.
The only thing I worry about in terms of AI is humans just accepting whatever answer the computer gives them. I couldn't find a link to it but a year or so ago was a case where someone was sent a property tax bill for millions of dollars even though no one else in the neighborhood's tax was that high, and even though their property tax was only in the very low thousands for years before that. Did anyone bother to double check? No, the computer said it, thus it must be correct. People are continuously trusting computers despite common sense not to. I worry that someday people will be convinced of the absolute infallibility of computers and do what ever it tells them to. It looks like that day might have already passed.
I got a phone call from my car insurance people asking me to take a quick survey. In the middle of it I asked the guy if he was a computer. He said no, but I am not sure I believe him. If he really was a computer, I wouldn't call him intelligent. But if he really was a person, then I'd certainly call it "monotone-voice-read-the-script-and show-no-signs-of-personality."