Because all surveillance is necessarily evil, right? And it's especially evil if you give them the information voluntarily, right? Knowing things is borderline-criminal, right?
Thus far Google has used its data for the purpose of delivering more accurately-targeted search results and advertisements, or if nothing else that's their goal. I can live with that.
To become immediately suspicious of a company gathering information about its customers is paranoia. Sure, they'll have an impressive database on many earth hunams. But what can they use it for besides improving its service? And, in answering that question, do consider that we live in the real world, where corporations are not more powerful than governments.
How can you not think of great ways to sell out and screw your fellow man? No wonder you call it the "dark side," you're just jealous of the people who are good at it.
This, I think, is fairly telling of a facet of geek culture that is not particularly well-acknowledged by its members.
I'm a geek, and definitely rather nonconformist and antisocial. In high school - which, I might add, I enjoyed tremendously - in high school, I hung around with all the nerds - the higher-math crowd, the band geeks, the people who'd play D&D at lunch. I've seen a fair share of ostracization going on around me. But it never happened to me.
I never had any problems with being threatened or intimidated - by anyone - for any reason, least of all for refusing to conform to the popular culture. Why would that be? I, who played violent video games and quietly kept to myself, the kid who barely cared about the sports teams and didn't go outside much - why was I not a victim of the oppression described above?
It's simple. I didn't respond in kind to the sort of attitudes that the parent post likens to nazism and overused Orwellian clichés. I did not resent the culture that I chose not to follow. I did not patronize my classmates who were not as good at science or math. I did not envy them when their talents, talents that were useless in real life, gave them some degree of fame. I did not give the socialites a reason to think themselves better than me - they can't gloat if the only things they have are things that I don't want.
But it was more than just that. All that accomplished was preventing me from blaming society for all my problems. Those who dislike the idea of popularity, who hate what about it that they perceive to be unfair, often do so because they cannot reap its benefits. They claim to loathe its superficiality, but they are exposed when they resent those who have it.
I'm fairly antisocial. That's not to say I didn't have friends. I had plenty of friends. A good friend of mine was the student council president, and student council basically amounts to a popularity contest. Another good friend of mine lettered in three sports. Quite a few were Slashdot readers who didn't really do much. I dunno, I guess I'm just a likeable guy. But most of the time I, being the social equivalent of an oyster, didn't even know who these people were until I happened to overhear a conversation about them.
The popular people - they didn't become popular by being assholes. Sure, there are some assholes - let them fool themselves into thinking they're respected. Ignore them and look for the ones who are actually worth knowing. Look beyond the cliques. Look beyond the role they perform in the byzantine machinations of high school culture. This isn't some touchy-feely let's-all-get-along milquetoast lecture, it's common sense.
If you resent a person for playing football, how can you expect them to not resent you for playing Quake? If you can't look past a person's preoccupation with fashion, how can you expect them to look past your preoccupation with technology?
If you want respect, earn it. Earn respect by showing respect. Sometimes you have to show it first.
This, it seems, is an example of the next stage in the development of open-source in general. Companies who aren't looking for any service in particular, offering incentives for programmers to finish a pet project and make it useful and - here's the important part - usable.
Open-source apps will be written without much incentive. Making them meaningful to users rather than developers is more difficult, and Google appears to be implementing a tested method for making it happen.
Let's be fair: if you have the right to do what you want with the hardware you own, then Sony has the right to sell you things which (if you voluntarily use it) updates the firmware. It's not as if Sony is forcing you to play the games which force-install firmware updates.
You can do whatever you want with the hardware you own; there's nothing illegal about it. But Sony has the right to manufacture the hardware whatever way it likes. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you're really that concerned about it, why don't you manufacture your own handheld game platform, and make it open?
More efficient businesses succeed. That's all there is to it. An inefficient can only compete on price by taking a loss - and generally they tend to offer inferior service. That loss would have to be pretty big to make people choose an inferior service based on price.
But, there are some circumstances where larger businesses are not necessarily inefficient, and the Internet is one of these.
But if you're looking for an example of smaller businesses succeeding, then opening up the local yellow pages (or, God forbid, going outside) will give you plenty.
Actually, yes. I see their plan now: make and publicize a game with unauthorized use of the Mario license. After they get the C&D, retain all the interest they had received by using Mario - but substitute their own characters. It's quite a clever little scheme.
Or, y'know, maybe they just didn't think about it.
Not necessarily. While that does happen often, in some industries it's far more efficient to have smaller businesses with less bureaucracy. Granted, the Internet is not terribly conducive to such organization.
There's an important distinction. A "revolution" is defined by what it accomplishes. A "concentration camp" is defined by what it intends to do. Gitmo was neither intended to be, not has it been, a labor camp - much less one where people are deliberately worked to death.
Slashdot Mirror
Two reasons: impatience and trust in the game's developers.
Is it a good or a bad thing that this took me twice as long to read as the rest of the post?
Because all surveillance is necessarily evil, right? And it's especially evil if you give them the information voluntarily, right? Knowing things is borderline-criminal, right?
Thus far Google has used its data for the purpose of delivering more accurately-targeted search results and advertisements, or if nothing else that's their goal. I can live with that.
To become immediately suspicious of a company gathering information about its customers is paranoia. Sure, they'll have an impressive database on many earth hunams. But what can they use it for besides improving its service? And, in answering that question, do consider that we live in the real world, where corporations are not more powerful than governments.
Apparently that's where the multiplayer is supposed to come in. Am I the only one who thinks the franchise could make an excellent MMO?
I think it'd be better to go with a locker, rather than a trash can.
And what's so bad about cannibalism?
If we're not supposed to eat animals, then how come they're made out of meat?
So how can I get in on this?
Easy. Everything causes cancer.
Water is wet! Film at 11.
How can you not think of great ways to sell out and screw your fellow man? No wonder you call it the "dark side," you're just jealous of the people who are good at it.
According to TFA, the guy owns a brand named "Stealth," and he's essentially doing this to prevent other people from making brands similarly named.
This, I think, is fairly telling of a facet of geek culture that is not particularly well-acknowledged by its members.
I'm a geek, and definitely rather nonconformist and antisocial. In high school - which, I might add, I enjoyed tremendously - in high school, I hung around with all the nerds - the higher-math crowd, the band geeks, the people who'd play D&D at lunch. I've seen a fair share of ostracization going on around me. But it never happened to me.
I never had any problems with being threatened or intimidated - by anyone - for any reason, least of all for refusing to conform to the popular culture. Why would that be? I, who played violent video games and quietly kept to myself, the kid who barely cared about the sports teams and didn't go outside much - why was I not a victim of the oppression described above?
It's simple. I didn't respond in kind to the sort of attitudes that the parent post likens to nazism and overused Orwellian clichés. I did not resent the culture that I chose not to follow. I did not patronize my classmates who were not as good at science or math. I did not envy them when their talents, talents that were useless in real life, gave them some degree of fame. I did not give the socialites a reason to think themselves better than me - they can't gloat if the only things they have are things that I don't want.
But it was more than just that. All that accomplished was preventing me from blaming society for all my problems. Those who dislike the idea of popularity, who hate what about it that they perceive to be unfair, often do so because they cannot reap its benefits. They claim to loathe its superficiality, but they are exposed when they resent those who have it.
I'm fairly antisocial. That's not to say I didn't have friends. I had plenty of friends. A good friend of mine was the student council president, and student council basically amounts to a popularity contest. Another good friend of mine lettered in three sports. Quite a few were Slashdot readers who didn't really do much. I dunno, I guess I'm just a likeable guy. But most of the time I, being the social equivalent of an oyster, didn't even know who these people were until I happened to overhear a conversation about them.
The popular people - they didn't become popular by being assholes. Sure, there are some assholes - let them fool themselves into thinking they're respected. Ignore them and look for the ones who are actually worth knowing. Look beyond the cliques. Look beyond the role they perform in the byzantine machinations of high school culture. This isn't some touchy-feely let's-all-get-along milquetoast lecture, it's common sense.
If you resent a person for playing football, how can you expect them to not resent you for playing Quake? If you can't look past a person's preoccupation with fashion, how can you expect them to look past your preoccupation with technology?
If you want respect, earn it. Earn respect by showing respect. Sometimes you have to show it first.
This, it seems, is an example of the next stage in the development of open-source in general. Companies who aren't looking for any service in particular, offering incentives for programmers to finish a pet project and make it useful and - here's the important part - usable.
Open-source apps will be written without much incentive. Making them meaningful to users rather than developers is more difficult, and Google appears to be implementing a tested method for making it happen.
What, you don't want a functional and effective music service to exist? Why not? More options for the consumer is always a good thing.
You can do whatever you want with the hardware you own; there's nothing illegal about it. But Sony has the right to manufacture the hardware whatever way it likes. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you're really that concerned about it, why don't you manufacture your own handheld game platform, and make it open?
But, there are some circumstances where larger businesses are not necessarily inefficient, and the Internet is one of these.
But if you're looking for an example of smaller businesses succeeding, then opening up the local yellow pages (or, God forbid, going outside) will give you plenty.
Actually, yes. I see their plan now: make and publicize a game with unauthorized use of the Mario license. After they get the C&D, retain all the interest they had received by using Mario - but substitute their own characters. It's quite a clever little scheme.
Or, y'know, maybe they just didn't think about it.
That name is, I believe, already taken by their headquarters in California. But "Google Stadium" does have a nice ring to it.
Google could bet on anything in this pool and be sure to win. But that would be insider trading.
Not necessarily. While that does happen often, in some industries it's far more efficient to have smaller businesses with less bureaucracy. Granted, the Internet is not terribly conducive to such organization.
Now I won't be able to get an unnecessary improvement to graphics on a TV I don't own and can't afford. I hate Nintendo. Or should I say Nin¥do.
Mudhole? Slimy? His home, this is!
Well, when it becomes common practice to work Gitmo prisoners to death, let me know.
There's an important distinction. A "revolution" is defined by what it accomplishes. A "concentration camp" is defined by what it intends to do. Gitmo was neither intended to be, not has it been, a labor camp - much less one where people are deliberately worked to death.