If, "Malevolent Dictatorships" really do not last, it is only true from a historical perspective. From the point of view of the people living through them, I bet they drab on and on and on. After all, dictatorships have certainly proven to be a lasting think in much of South America, Africa and the Middle East. They haven't always been the same dictator for long, but the dictatorship goes on.
Actually, I can't think of a single example in the past half century that a people got fed up with a dictator, threw him out of power (with or without outside assistance) and then were still a democracy 10 years later.
Um, how does this have anything to do with the iPhone? What is the point in comparing the two devices? For all I know this phone will turn out to be successful, but it is a completely different product.
I don't think the point of this story is some big feat of supercomputing. The interesting bit is that they made a really neat simulation and tossed it online. The processing power involved is a point of interest, nothing more.
As someone who has been involved in small scale DIY productions, I have to thank you. I have not laughed this hard in a while. Your sarcasm is truly breathtaking.... it was sarcasm, wasn't it?
All of this is a nice dream, but there are a few issues. First, you are still assuming that TV is going to be around as the cash backbone of the production industry. Going through your four point first paragraph; 1 - Aspiring filmmakers and video stars discovered on YouTube. Discovered by who and for what? If YouTube and direct distribution win over the traditional methods (which is inevitable), who is going to be discovering these people and who what? Yes, millions of people on the internet will happily watch them do their thing, but that is not going to generate the next '24', 'Heroes', 'Lost' or 'Battlestar Galactica'. 2 - "Some shows that 'production model groups' won't put on TV". What TV? The basis of this discussion is the real fear that television production as we know it is not going to be sustainable. You are assuming that whatever happens a large, lucrative TV market will exist. Right now, there is a real (although possibly not realistic) fear that it won't. 3 - Corporate sponsorship will be wonderful for the Reality TV shows and possibly a few others, but that is it. Can you imagine what your favorite drama would be like as presented and bankrolled by Pepsi? I can, and I can tell you now that it would no longer be your favorite drama. 4 - Mash ups of what? What will be being made out of what?
The difference between the current model and the future (as it stands now) is that the money won't be falling into any pockets at all because the people with the big money to make it happen lose all their incentive to invest. And don't kid yourself that the best of the best needs the few people/organizations with the big money to happen. Could you see 'Lord of the Rings' or 'The Departed' or any other movie being made if the director had to convince million people to donate $5 to the cause first?
Internet based distribution distributes the content. That's why it is referred to as a content distribution system. It is, however, famous for NOT being a good wealth distribution system. See the DotCom bust.
The major issue with what you are saying is that YouTube is a distribution model, not a production model. Once the TV stations are gone, who pays for the shows to get made? Who foots the bill for $100,000+ episodes? If YouTube wins, it may be a good thing for free speach, but it might also be the end of one of the most powerful sources of entertainment ever created.
I agree with everything you just said but I have a comment on your last point. I think the vast majority of developers know exactly who their target end user is... themselves. There is almost no one working to 'dumb down' the amount of knowledge needed to run the OS because that is not how the developers themselves run the OS. They are designing an OS for their own use which sounds to me like a fine thing to do. The problem is that there is a group of developers and a few end users who are so out of touch with anyone outside the technology field that they are working under the assumption that everyone has the same basic skill that they do.
From how it is shaping up so far, if Sony wants exclusives for the PS3 it's going to have to make them itself. The Wikipedia lists for PS3 and Wii games have been put in a sortable format. Sorting by exclusive titles gives some interesting data. So far, the PS3 only has between 12 and 14 (depending on region) exclusive games far enough along to have a release date more concrete than 'Q4 2007'. Compare that to the Wii which has between 26 and 42 exclusives with release dates. The range of publishers that are making the Wii games is also interesting to look at. I wish there was a way to check the 360 titles in the same way, but alas, that list is not sortable.
The problem with this is that when Grandma can't figure out why her computer isn't working, she isn't going to be angrily calling up the Ubuntu User Group, she is going to be calling up Dell. Not only that, but she is going to have a (reasonable) expectation that Dell will know what is going wrong. Anything less than full support by Dell would result in so much negative work of mouth that it would kill the project immediately.
Catch 22 here. The people who know enough to care what distro they have could certainly replace whatever Dell ships standard. As the same time, the people who don't care what distro of Linux they get also probably don't care if they are running Linux at all instead of Windows. So why shouldn't Dell just keep selling Windows boxes and letting those who care replace it with Linux?
The last 2 words of that sentence just drove off 2/3 of Dell's customers. If you need to go to the command line or directly edit ANYTHING in order to fix anything but the most exotic problems, then the software in question is not ready for the mass market.
Is this good? Is it the way that things would be in a perfect world? No. However, it is the way things ARE.
How would this actually hurt Google? I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, their share price has no affect on their income. Is any part of Google's day-to-day operations connected to their stock price at all?
Shocking! Do you normally dictate the delivery format to your client? If a publisher wants their images in Adobe Illustrator format, do you feel oppressed due tot he fact that they are not interested in some random format you found on the web? If a website you build is required to be compatible with IE or Firefox, do you rail at the injustice of not being able to use the latest code hack that only works in some obscure browser from 5 years ago?
The government, like any other organization, has the right to dictate the details of their work exactly as far as they can enforce them. No one is forcing anyone to work with or for the government. If using the document format of their choice is morally repugnant to you, feel free to take your services elseware.
Yeah, darn that government for wanting to be able to read the documents 20 years down the road.
The government is not forcing this on anyone. They have zero interest in forcing you or anyone else outside the government to use any given format. This is not Big Brother, this is a great case of the market economy at work! Microsoft's largest customer is saying that they they are in the market for a system that meets specific criteria. They don't care who provides it or where it comes from, just as long as it does what they need it to do. Now, the market decides who will provide them what they want.
Except that Dell will never go with that. You know why? Because when the customer is pissed off at the level of support they get from the distro (or just pissed off in general) do you think they are going to blame the distro support group? No, they are going to blame Dell. Dell knows this which is why they would never consider for an instant any such plan as that.
Hey, I'm not trying to make any accusations. For that matter, I can't say that I am particularly in favor of the more closed approach. I have a pocket PC and enjoy more than a couple quirky programs that are about as hacked together as it gets. That said, the iPhone is going to be a very high profile target. Also, it is being sold as more of an internet device than any other smart phone I am aware of. I may not agree with the choice Apple made here but I can see where they are coming from.
Not quite accurate. From what I understand third party applications will be available but they will have to be signed off on by Apple. As far as I know, the justification for this is that Apple/Cingular is worried that if they let anything and everything run on the iPhone, some hacked together script or program is going to run wild and do damage to the network. Also, this strictly limits the possibilities of viruses being introduced for the iPhone.
Yeah, but the difference is that one is true and the other is not. The whole point of this article is that the sales numbers are saying that people are REALLY EXCITED about the Wii. Someone saying that everyone is excited and hyped about the console selling 250,000 units while more sit on the shelves is a shill. Someone saying that everyone is excited about the console selling 450,000 units and still can't be shipped to the stores fast enough is not.
Well then, make sure your MP knows that you do not support the actions of the current heritage minister Bev Oda. As the person who sets policy for copyright in Canada she has been cught accepting large sums of money ('campaign funding') from American entertainment companies. At the same time, she has refused to meet with almost any groups who represent actual Canadaian artists. Michael Geist has some great reporting on the issue. Check out http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1564/ and http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1529/ to start, but there is much more there.
Give me a break. That is like saying that you can't "gain unauthorized access" to a house. After all, if you are able to break in you were obviously meant to have access. Who is allowed to have access to a property isn't defined by who is able to get in. Who is allowed to have access to a computer system isn't defined by who is able to beat the security.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Y2K turn out to be the lack of a tech flop?
If, "Malevolent Dictatorships" really do not last, it is only true from a historical perspective. From the point of view of the people living through them, I bet they drab on and on and on. After all, dictatorships have certainly proven to be a lasting think in much of South America, Africa and the Middle East. They haven't always been the same dictator for long, but the dictatorship goes on.
Actually, I can't think of a single example in the past half century that a people got fed up with a dictator, threw him out of power (with or without outside assistance) and then were still a democracy 10 years later.
Um, how does this have anything to do with the iPhone? What is the point in comparing the two devices? For all I know this phone will turn out to be successful, but it is a completely different product.
iPhone - 4-8 GB of storage
Upstage - 64 MB (HA! yes Megabyte!)
iPhone - 3.5 inch screen at 320x480
Upstage - 2.1 inch screen at 176x220
iPhone - Ability to upload your own video content
Upstage - Access to Sprint TV video clips
Why are these being compared? They are not in the same product class or market.
Sad and bald
I don't think the point of this story is some big feat of supercomputing. The interesting bit is that they made a really neat simulation and tossed it online. The processing power involved is a point of interest, nothing more.
As someone who has been involved in small scale DIY productions, I have to thank you. I have not laughed this hard in a while. Your sarcasm is truly breathtaking. ... it was sarcasm, wasn't it?
All of this is a nice dream, but there are a few issues. First, you are still assuming that TV is going to be around as the cash backbone of the production industry. Going through your four point first paragraph;
1 - Aspiring filmmakers and video stars discovered on YouTube. Discovered by who and for what? If YouTube and direct distribution win over the traditional methods (which is inevitable), who is going to be discovering these people and who what? Yes, millions of people on the internet will happily watch them do their thing, but that is not going to generate the next '24', 'Heroes', 'Lost' or 'Battlestar Galactica'.
2 - "Some shows that 'production model groups' won't put on TV". What TV? The basis of this discussion is the real fear that television production as we know it is not going to be sustainable. You are assuming that whatever happens a large, lucrative TV market will exist. Right now, there is a real (although possibly not realistic) fear that it won't.
3 - Corporate sponsorship will be wonderful for the Reality TV shows and possibly a few others, but that is it. Can you imagine what your favorite drama would be like as presented and bankrolled by Pepsi? I can, and I can tell you now that it would no longer be your favorite drama.
4 - Mash ups of what? What will be being made out of what?
The difference between the current model and the future (as it stands now) is that the money won't be falling into any pockets at all because the people with the big money to make it happen lose all their incentive to invest. And don't kid yourself that the best of the best needs the few people/organizations with the big money to happen. Could you see 'Lord of the Rings' or 'The Departed' or any other movie being made if the director had to convince million people to donate $5 to the cause first?
Internet based distribution distributes the content. That's why it is referred to as a content distribution system. It is, however, famous for NOT being a good wealth distribution system. See the DotCom bust.
The major issue with what you are saying is that YouTube is a distribution model, not a production model. Once the TV stations are gone, who pays for the shows to get made? Who foots the bill for $100,000+ episodes? If YouTube wins, it may be a good thing for free speach, but it might also be the end of one of the most powerful sources of entertainment ever created.
I agree with everything you just said but I have a comment on your last point. I think the vast majority of developers know exactly who their target end user is... themselves. There is almost no one working to 'dumb down' the amount of knowledge needed to run the OS because that is not how the developers themselves run the OS. They are designing an OS for their own use which sounds to me like a fine thing to do. The problem is that there is a group of developers and a few end users who are so out of touch with anyone outside the technology field that they are working under the assumption that everyone has the same basic skill that they do.
From how it is shaping up so far, if Sony wants exclusives for the PS3 it's going to have to make them itself. The Wikipedia lists for PS3 and Wii games have been put in a sortable format. Sorting by exclusive titles gives some interesting data. So far, the PS3 only has between 12 and 14 (depending on region) exclusive games far enough along to have a release date more concrete than 'Q4 2007'. Compare that to the Wii which has between 26 and 42 exclusives with release dates. The range of publishers that are making the Wii games is also interesting to look at. I wish there was a way to check the 360 titles in the same way, but alas, that list is not sortable.
3 _games
Check them out for yourselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_
The problem with this is that when Grandma can't figure out why her computer isn't working, she isn't going to be angrily calling up the Ubuntu User Group, she is going to be calling up Dell. Not only that, but she is going to have a (reasonable) expectation that Dell will know what is going wrong. Anything less than full support by Dell would result in so much negative work of mouth that it would kill the project immediately.
Catch 22 here. The people who know enough to care what distro they have could certainly replace whatever Dell ships standard. As the same time, the people who don't care what distro of Linux they get also probably don't care if they are running Linux at all instead of Windows. So why shouldn't Dell just keep selling Windows boxes and letting those who care replace it with Linux?
The last 2 words of that sentence just drove off 2/3 of Dell's customers. If you need to go to the command line or directly edit ANYTHING in order to fix anything but the most exotic problems, then the software in question is not ready for the mass market.
Is this good? Is it the way that things would be in a perfect world? No. However, it is the way things ARE.
How would this actually hurt Google? I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, their share price has no affect on their income. Is any part of Google's day-to-day operations connected to their stock price at all?
Shocking! Do you normally dictate the delivery format to your client? If a publisher wants their images in Adobe Illustrator format, do you feel oppressed due tot he fact that they are not interested in some random format you found on the web? If a website you build is required to be compatible with IE or Firefox, do you rail at the injustice of not being able to use the latest code hack that only works in some obscure browser from 5 years ago?
The government, like any other organization, has the right to dictate the details of their work exactly as far as they can enforce them. No one is forcing anyone to work with or for the government. If using the document format of their choice is morally repugnant to you, feel free to take your services elseware.
Yeah, darn that government for wanting to be able to read the documents 20 years down the road.
The government is not forcing this on anyone. They have zero interest in forcing you or anyone else outside the government to use any given format. This is not Big Brother, this is a great case of the market economy at work! Microsoft's largest customer is saying that they they are in the market for a system that meets specific criteria. They don't care who provides it or where it comes from, just as long as it does what they need it to do. Now, the market decides who will provide them what they want.
Except that Dell will never go with that. You know why? Because when the customer is pissed off at the level of support they get from the distro (or just pissed off in general) do you think they are going to blame the distro support group? No, they are going to blame Dell. Dell knows this which is why they would never consider for an instant any such plan as that.
Hey, I'm not trying to make any accusations. For that matter, I can't say that I am particularly in favor of the more closed approach. I have a pocket PC and enjoy more than a couple quirky programs that are about as hacked together as it gets. That said, the iPhone is going to be a very high profile target. Also, it is being sold as more of an internet device than any other smart phone I am aware of. I may not agree with the choice Apple made here but I can see where they are coming from.
Not quite accurate. From what I understand third party applications will be available but they will have to be signed off on by Apple. As far as I know, the justification for this is that Apple/Cingular is worried that if they let anything and everything run on the iPhone, some hacked together script or program is going to run wild and do damage to the network. Also, this strictly limits the possibilities of viruses being introduced for the iPhone.
Yeah, but the difference is that one is true and the other is not. The whole point of this article is that the sales numbers are saying that people are REALLY EXCITED about the Wii. Someone saying that everyone is excited and hyped about the console selling 250,000 units while more sit on the shelves is a shill. Someone saying that everyone is excited about the console selling 450,000 units and still can't be shipped to the stores fast enough is not.
Well then, make sure your MP knows that you do not support the actions of the current heritage minister Bev Oda. As the person who sets policy for copyright in Canada she has been cught accepting large sums of money ('campaign funding') from American entertainment companies. At the same time, she has refused to meet with almost any groups who represent actual Canadaian artists. Michael Geist has some great reporting on the issue. Check out http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1564/ and http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1529/ to start, but there is much more there.
An American corruption please. Here in Canada we follow the Queen's English. Well, for the most part at least.
YouTube IS the next pandemic. I swear, if that site went down, productivity would go up so much the net effect would be positive, flu or no flu :)
Give me a break. That is like saying that you can't "gain unauthorized access" to a house. After all, if you are able to break in you were obviously meant to have access. Who is allowed to have access to a property isn't defined by who is able to get in. Who is allowed to have access to a computer system isn't defined by who is able to beat the security.
Well, GTAIII wasn't quite 'XP generation' and the others haven't been very groundbreaking compared to most of the list.