Okay, I find there are Four distinct elements to NWN:
1) The game play rules. These are primarily set by Wizards of the coast. D&D has specific character building rules that NWN follows. NWN2 can't call itself "based on D&D" without following most of those rules. There are some rules, about 1%, which don't translate well to an online vs paper game, so there is play allowed, but not much.
2) The editor. This is already pretty sophisticated. New features added should be added as an update to an already feature rich application, since you can't add much more to it already.
3) The graphics. These could be updated, but that's little more than "prettying up" the game.
4) The scenarios. Okay, you worked hard on it, so make us spend money to reward your efforts, but why not release it as an expansion of the original NWN? It will be cheaper for us, and even if you don't release the damn thing for Mac on time (grumble) at least the mac community knows how to make the PC expansions work without needing a fully native installer.
Basically I see no reason for a brand new engine other than to force people to pay more money than they have to. The other thing is that I see a lot more people's names on this NWN2 than NWN1 so it might be a licensing thing, but frankly that's hurtful to the NWN1 community. You sold the app, but you haven't really let the community milk it as much as it could be.
Because the current state of the industry needs to change! The current state of the industry LACKS competition. Predatory pricing at this level causes these problems. But introduce more companies with more competition and companies will be forced to find a way to lower costs and prices without resorting to predatory pricing.
Agreed. But as I have already said, there are few competitors with the wherewithal to enter the market. Certianly there are none that are willing to build infrastructure. So how do we create this competitive market? Regulation maybe, but maybe not. This is the big problem the FCC faces.
I'm only arguing that it should happen. It probably won't, but if it does it will be a good thing.
And we finally completely agree.
Basically our problem in this discussion is that I'm arguing that it should happen, and you are arguing that it can't happen. See you point out that the way the industry is now, price wars erupt and cause problems. I already know that. All I ever wanted to say was the industry needs to be shaken up and changed. Maybe it can't happen because of the beauracracy, doesn't mean that it shouldn't.
And I'm not comparing South Korea directly to the US. What you are saying is that because people suck, beauracracy sucks, and business sucks that the industry will not be able to change, but I'm saying BECAUSE people suck, beauracracy sucks, and business sucks, things should change. South Korea, for now, has overcome its problems. That's enough hope for me:)
It's a classic catch 22 argument, I happen to be on the ever so slightly more optimistic side. I'm holding out for that miracle technology or miracle politician.
I also disagree with you on the Vonage topic, because they offload the need for infrastructure onto the internet provider which is a major cost cutting feature. But that's another discussion.:)
I'm appalled by this statement, and that it was modded up. Tying two products together does not make one a monopoly. Having too much market share makes one a monopoly. Slashdotters still don't understand what a monopoly is, and they really should.
If chevy did what you described, everyone would switch to Ford, Saturn, Nissan, or whoever, because they don't have the car market cornered/
Any such case against apple in this instance is weak. They have 50-60% of the online music market, but they don't have the music market in general cornered by any stretch. You can still buy CDs from hundreds of different places. And you can rip those songs from the CDs and load them on your MP3 player and never even touch the iTMS. People do this quite often (I happen to be one of them).
That doesn't make this tactic any less immoral, it just means that you can't prosecute them. If in 20 years iTMS corners the market on pay for music downloads and 90% of brick and mortar stores stop selling CDs, THEN Apple has a monopoly and should be treated as such.
No, actually I was referring to the US telecom market - since that's what we were discussing.
Okay, lets get one thing straight. My initial post said the US telecomm industry needed competition, in order to lower prices. You've jumped to the conclusion that this would lead to predatory pricing. How can you make this leap of logic? It doesn't HAVE to lead to predatory pricing. Competition could consist of finding a way to introduct more companies to the telecomm mix. Perhaps companies that use Wireless access points rather than phone or cable lines. This frees the need to use a network of land lines controlled by one company.
And that someone is you;)...
Yeah, that's mature:P
Actually you said, "Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market." This is not really true. Pricing is one method of making a market non-competitive.
This is ridiculous. If companies don't differentiate themselves from other companies they don't compete. Competing on pricing is one way, and its a proven way that's not detrimental. If I run a company that cuts costs by about 10%, I can pass that savings to a customer, thus competing on price. You are confusing competing on price with predatory pricing. They are two different things and I've mentioned this 4 times, something you've avoided addressing.
Take for example Vonage. I can buy a phone plan from them for $30. A similar plan from verizon on traditional lines is $80 all inclusive (taxes etc). Vonage's costs are lower because they use voice over IP and the service and quality is the same (at least in my opinion it is). THAT'S competiting on price and its non-predatory.
But then we still have the problem of the huge cost of building the facilities. Obviously if the facilities were in place it would be easy to have service-based competition at reasonable prices - and everyone would be happy. But the problem is that some has to build those facilities. And whoever that is will want to be guaranteed huge returns to offset the enormous risk and expenditure that such a construction project would entail...
While this might be true, its only an assumption with no facts. The fact is South Korea did it, so its possible. Your assuming that only a large company could attempt this, while it may be possible for a lot of much smaller companies to compete over areas and offer service in many different areas, thus freeing up the need to have one big huge conglomerate running half the country. The possibilities are endless.
Plus we aren't arguing over the possibility of it happening and the costs of getting into this. I'm only arguing for the introduction of more competition. We'll worry about its possibility later, because its not impossible, and not necessarily improbably. If this argument were about surviving a black hole to sell internet service on the other side, well then maybe we should stop:)
Walmart is nothing liek telecom companies. This is a bad analogy.
I didn't say walmart was like a telecomm company. I said price based competition is common. In fact I used the word rampant. And AGAIN, price based competition is not necessarily predatory pricing. If I can do the same thing someone else can for less cost, I will lower my price to compete. That's all I'm saying.
That's because in the telecom industry "competitive pricing" inevitably and quickly devolves into price wars.
Because the current state of the industry needs to change! The current state of the industry LACKS competition. Predatory pricing at this level causes these problems. But introduce more companies with more competition and companies will be forced to find a way to lower costs and prices without resorting to predatory pricing.
I agree. But broadband has to exist as a market before it can become competitive. So, someone is going to have to sink in a ton of money in order to
Someone needs to re-take economics 101. Predatory pricing and the resultant price wars are generally bad for the market...
You are assuming that the pricing in South Korea is predatory. You are also assuming competing on price automatically means its predatory pricing. Neither myself nor the article said that or implied that. Predatory pricing is bad, competing on price is not. Someone needs to re-take logic 101.
Companies will try to kill each off through price wars in order to recover a greater share of the market - this is long term good for them but bad for the market and the consumer. Obviously they will not sell services below costs without hope that they can recover the costs later..
Again, assuming predatory pricing. Yes, companies do that. But we have no proof that there is a predatory price war going on here in South Korea (based soley on the article's information). All I said was that competition is good, even on price. Competitive prices does not automatically mean predatory pricing. Plus predatory pricing often happens when dealing with very very large companies that have a lot of capital. The more competition you have, the less likely this works because you can't steal enough market share from all your competitors and remain in business when you sell below cost.
Telecom companies are not like lemonade stands where the cost of market entry is low. It costs a shitload of money to enter the market as a competitor - consequently there are very few companies with the wherewithal to do so. Sadly these generally companies engage (illogically and all to frequently) in price-based competition in order to win market-share. The result is a price war which they ultimately lose with the result being their insolvency.
After potential competitors see their predecessors go down in flames they aren't likely to take a shot themselves. Then we are stuck with the same monopolies that we have now..
AMERICAN Telecomm companies are not like lemonade stands. Yes you are correct about this. However, they have apparently established a framework in South Korea that doesn't tie the framework so tightly to the company, and competition can be healthy, and thus entry into the market can be done at a lower cost. This is what I am getting from the article, and this is what most people are calling for in the US. Untie the wires from the telecomm industry and competition will open dramatically. We've been trying to do that for years without a huge amount of success.
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price
Again, I use the term competitive prices, and you turn it into talking about a price war.
The bottom line is that when there is a lot of competition, prices go down. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply broadband should drop to $5 or $10 a month in 4 months. I'm just saying open up competition. We'll get better prices AND better service.
Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well.
You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool.
Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition is good for the market.
The the ridiculousness of this statement is assuming that costs never go down and that companies will sell service or goods below cost and never expect to get it back. That's stupid. No company is going to sell goods below cost unless they had expected profit to come later. Otherwise the company is mismanaged. It's in a business's self interest not to do that so its not something that happens all that often unless the company is run by flying monkeys.
Yes when one company goes out of business it hurts the industry because there is less competition, but in a highly competitive market with lots of companies this isn't usually a big problem. It's only a problem when you have 3 or 4 very big companies in an industry with high costs of entry.
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price. Once you hit rock bottom on costs, that's when you compete on service, but the broadband companies haven't nearly hit rock bottom yet.
The Seoul government's clearly articulated vision for modernising the country's infrastructure stands in stark contrast to the regulatory morass that has stunted development in US telecommunications for several decades. South Korea's policy -- the cornerstone of a national technology initiative to help revive a devastated economy -- has created true broadband competition, which in turn has helped prices fall and speeds rise.
Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.
Now, broadband is primarily in the hands of baby bells and the cable company who charge between $30 to $45 for broadband.
I think you can give some of the success to the ease of installing the infrastructure, but if there was no competition, this would not nearly be the success it would be.
The only way I see competition being restored in the near future in the US is by entrepeneurs setting up wireless internet access points which cover great distances. This will free us of wires which are controlled by state sponsored monopolies.
See, that's the point. Everyone who was born in the US, has no major criminal record, and is over 18 gets a vote in the US, period. That includes stupid people, people with eye problems, elderly people, and people in general who have a hard time adapting to change.
Telling someone they are stupid and should read the ballot is not a possibility here. Exactly how does one draw the line between someone who can or can't vote because they are too stupid? That's the whole philosophy behind the US voting system, is that no one is allowed to draw that line. Plus, one man's stupid decision is another man's honest mistake. You can't make that judgement here.
That being said, the voting system must try to be as accurate as possible. Bush won Florida by less than 1000 votes, and over 2000 votes were invalidated because a number of elderly people couldn't differentiate between which hole was supposed to be for Gore or Pat Buchannon on the ballot. So they simply punched a new hole. Okay, they messed up, but you don't call them stupid for a simple mistake. People only get a chance to vote once a year, and that process can change several times. It needs to be as easy as possible and try to prevent mistakes, and it needs to allow to easily reverse mistakes.
The voting process has to strive for idiot proofness, even if it is not 100%. Punch ballots are simple to make, simple to work, and cheap to buy, but they are by no means idiot proof. They are notoriously inaccurate because of hanging chad, poor ballot layout, and variable accountability when it comes to recounts (i.e. the voting workers had to make a decision as to which ballot counted as a vote and which one was not because the hole may not have been punched properly). We make a big deal about this because of the margin of victory in the last election. We need to make sure every vote counts
An all paper system might work, as in other countries. I like the lever system, because its got a low incidence of error (at least as far as I have seen). Current electronic systems are knee jerk solutions to a real problem, but will end up causing just as many problems without some serious research and design.
It would also have an impact on my own personal email system. I have comcast as my ISP now, but I don't use comcast's email. I have a website, and through that I accept email. Because I have my own domain, I don't have to worry about changing my email ever again and everyone can get in touch with me. Fortunately my site comes with a decent spam blocker as well.
And finally, I gain access to that email site via the mail program on my mac. I do this to integrate with my address book, which also integrates with my Treo 270. Everything works nice and neat and I get loads of features and things just work. It would take to look to go into major detail but because of my setup, which has lots of conveniences for me and its what I want, blocking access to my website's email from my connection would royally screw things up.
And I don't host spam lists or anything like that. I should be allowed to access any email server I want thank you. It's the spam servers which have to be localized and taken out.
How many goddamn times do we have to say it here? It's all about the fact that Microsoft is a Monopoly! In a competitive market for nonmonopolies, attempts at vendor lockin like this are annoying but not illegal. They are illegal for monopolies, and they are illegal for a reason! It's been explained ad nauseum here and I can't understand why people mod up these comments. You don't have to hate microsoft, but I would consider the average slashdot to understand monopoly law and the reasons behind it.
Dissecting the article
on
VoIP Questioned
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
1) The price of VoIP's thriftiness
Sounds condescending to me, or designed to be scary, typical tag line to get you worked up over the topic. Passing judgement before the facts are presented.
2) If you have a home alarm system, need to dial 911, use TiVo or simply want your phone number included in the phone book, you're likely to be out of luck.
Home alarm system's and TiVo can change. TiVo is a simple non-essential piece of hardware which should change to accomodate such customers as VOIP catches on. Alarm systems will figure a way around this. Of course, if you feel you can expend money on an alarm system for your home, you can probably afford the current rates your phone company is charging. I'm not saying an alarm system is elitist... its just expensive.
As for phone listing, well damnit who cares? I'll pick up my next pizza. Besides, you can keep your old listing in the phone book when you switch to Vonage and as VOIP catches on this will be taken care of.
As for 911 dialing during power outages, the article willfully and obviously glosses over the possibility that people might have cell phones. This is what makes me feel this is FUDish, because, while the 911 issue is important, the article failed to cover this very important and obvious point. I believe they were afraid that the original alarmist tone of the article would have been defused because 911 dialing is important to everyone, while all those other points are only important to a select few.
3) VoIP certainly has it's selling points--unlimited local and long-distance dialing plans that are about 30 percent cheaper than standard services, dialing from any broadband connection and being able to choose a phone number regardless of your location--the TiVo situation if just the tip of the drawback iceberg.
First, try 50 percent, maybe more. Vonage has a plan for just $15 for 500 talk minutes, anywhere in the country. For local free calling and no special LD plans, Verizon charges me somewhere between $30 and $40.
Second, what the hell is the last part of that paragraph? It seems so cryptic to me.
4) Protecting your home could get tougher, as well. Some home alarm systems have trouble with broadband connections, or their manufacturers don't yet trust the reliability of the Internet.
Back to this a second, this sentences reeks of FUD, because it says "protecting your home could get harder." Not all of us buy alarm systems... goodness! I can't protect my home without a phone? GASP!
5) 911 calls over VoIP are usually routed through a third party, and there's been the occasional detour to an emergency call center in the wrong part of the country. Because of VoIP's mobility--subscribers can use any broadband connection anywhere--emergency operators won't automatically know where the person's calling from.
Facts please? I've heard of no such "detours." Can we have some proof to back this up please? Even instances from the slashdot community would be nice.
And yes, they do tout VOIP as being mobile, and yet 911 calls could be routed back home while you are on the road. However, this will be a learning point for early adopters, but future versions should handle this better. This is by design for the convenience of the customer.
6) The Bell operating companies, comprised of Verizon, Qwest Communications International, SBC and BellSouth, prefer to wait until they build high-speed fiber-optic connections to homes for their all-out VoIP launches. The so-called fiber-to-the-premises initiatives, however, could take a decade or more to complete.
Translation: They don't have the infrastructure yet and they don't want to kill their current phone business too fast
7) Both Cox and Comcast are promising faster VoIP rollouts.
Translation: they are counting on early adopters so that they can eat the baby bells' lunches.
Okay first off lets understand something. Using a Mac or Linux isn't what makes you smart, or even arrogant. Using a PC doesn't make you dumb. This argument has been posed ad nauseum for decades as if to say one group just is smarter than the other.
One group may be smarter than the other, but it has NOTHING to do with actually using the type of computer!
It has everything to do with the life choices that we make and how we go about making decisions. It also has to do with how one has to come about making the choice of Mac or Linux over PC.
First of all, the easiest answer to the question "which operating system should I use?" is going to be a windows PC for at least one or two more decades. Since this is the easiest answer, its the answer most often taken. Lazy people, uninformed people, and people just can't possibly understand how a computer works will take the easy answer.
However, with Macs and Linux, the users arrived at that information differently. They've worked on many machines, perform various functions, and do more than email and surf the web. They are deeper into their computer experience because getting into that experience is important and they learn more. These same people tend to be mroe logical and research their decisions more because that's the nature of everything they do.
Second, the two above statements are not absolutes, they are tendencies. Apple and linux users tend to look more into their computer experience because they want more out of it, but that's not to say there are no PC users who do the same thing. However, due to the tendency that more PC users are simply looking for that "simple answer" this then skews the overall social makeup of the PC user base towards the less analytical and creative of the general american populace.
Third, its all about perception. The easy answer is perceived as easy. You can argue its not so easy, what with bugs and viruses and spyware, and that you will pay for it later. However, that's not what the general populace thinks. In my opinion they are misinformed, but they are definitely underinformed about their choices. Linux and Macs require a larger investment than most people are willing to put in, but if you make that investment it tends to be returned pretty quickly in one form or another. It's just like the way investment bankers work. They know you have to invest to get something back. Most people look at their PC as a TV or Microwave oven. To them it's just an appliance that needs regular updates. A similar investment can be made in a PC, you just go about it differently.
The phrase "Mac/Linux users are smarter/more creative/better than PC users" serves no purpose other than to get people riled up. There are tons of better ways to explain it but they take several paragraphs, like this post does.
Car dealer: Here's our latest spiffiest model the D3! Wanna buy it? You: Can I take it for a test drive? Car Dealer: no sorry. We don't allow that any more. You: so basically it looks really cool, but if I don't like the way it drives, I'm stuck with it? No try before you buy? Car dealer: ummmm sorry I can't let you test drive this. You: riiiiiiiiiiiiiight... I'll be going over to your competitor over there. Bye!
The parent post is utter crap. Software is the only package that people have tremendous difficulty returning because of restrictions and such, and games are the worst. If a Game is buggy and I don't like it I should be able to return it. If its going to be so hard to return things, throw me a bone by giving me a demo to try it out first. It's being good to the consumer.
But of course, what do I know? I must be the only one who shares the sentiment of the person you replied to. All the other players who will buy this must love to get screwed by yet another game company.
I happen to like ham sandwiches. Especially with the right cheese and mustard. MMMMMMMmmmmmmm Ham sammich... *head lolls back while drooling commences*
Am I mistaken, or isn't JPEG a lossy compression format? PNG is Loss-less so you can make additional changes to it, but JPEG is a final format and it purposefully loses information that the image display doesn't need.
Ergo, JPEGs can possibly be smaller in lots of instances, even outside of photographs, if the image is just right.
Don't get me wrong, this is great for the current system of taking 2 hrs to get people through security checkpoints, loaded onto the plane, along with tons of luggage, and then offloading them.
I just took a flight to boston from Philadelphia. The entire trip from parking at philadelphia to landing at boston took close to 3 hrs. It's probably 6 hours drive to boston. I'm not really saving much time here. Fortunately my company paid for it, but it was amazingly expensive because it was booked last minute for a customer.
What I want to see is the Air Taxi system that NASA and the FAA were working on. This was an overhaul in the Air Traffic control system which would open up new options in air travel. An Air Taxi could simply be a small prop or smaller jet plane that would be cheaper to fly and maintain, and it would be a lot easier to get on and off... like a taxi!
Or how about some MagLev trains? A 300+ Mph train on a safe and easy to maintain elevated track. If we could just find a way to create the infrastructure, we could make transportation more affordable and easier.
As it stands, our current system is old and antiquated and inconvenient... and expensive! We need some disruptive technologies to get a foothold. Changing the nature of travel will solve more problems than trying to put patches on the current system. I consider this RF solution a patch on a much larger problem.
Verizon was hit hard by the RIAAs attempts to supoena the names of their users. It's not in Verizon's best interests to give up such names, because they make money on services, not software. The DMCA has severe effects on software and copywrited files. Verizon doesn't give a rats ass (as they should not) as to what goes across their networks, as long as people pay for the right to use those lines.
If people lose privacy and anonymity by using Verizon because they are the target of the RIAA, Verizon will lose customers. Verizon can't afford that.
Also note companies like Comcast and AOL/Time Warner who are cable companies who are NOT on that list. They provide internet services, but they are also part of larger media conglomerates that want their media content providers preserved.
Nintendo has always been late in delivery, but Nintendo and Sony's game markets don't over lap very much. If you only have a one console game house, here's how it breaks out:
1) Nintendo is usually for younger kids and more conscious parents who want their kids to have fun but want games like Pokemon, Mario, Zelda, or other similar games they approve of. They are more cartoony, less violent, and suitable for youngsters. Nintendo's market is smaller but its a tight niche and Nintendo works just fine in that niche and PS2 has a hard time cracking that niche.
2) PSX and PS2 are more for teens and adults, especially hardcore gamers. They always have and by establishing their niche, they have a wide range of games.
These two platforms have different niches and have differentiated themselves in order to compete, which is the whole point of capitalism.
3) xbox pretty much seems to appear to be another flavor of PS2. I don't know if there are any differences, except that PS2 has more games. At best I've noticed some games which historically were for or were going to be for PCs are showing up on xbox, but I'm not sure.
And therein lies the problem. The only thing I know that differentiates the PS2 from the xbox is the games! I'm joe average gamer, not some hardcore player who buys all the platforms and 500 games. How can xbox compete?
Now, it becomes a catch 22 to try to eat a competitors lunch when there is nothing to say you are better than the competitor. What this move does do is a risky attempt to say "we are better because we are first!!!"
If they are first, more developers may flock to them,m and people may accept this argument of first being better
OR
More developers may get pissed because their old xbox development investment was blown because they ended the first console's life cycle way early. Also, people may reject it, because of its reputation.
We know that Nintendo doesn't have to be first to market to keep its niche satisfied. We also know those other first to market consoles like Dreamcast, 3D0, Saturn, etc, were flops.
So the question is will the Xbox2 get lucky? It's decidedly against that possibility but you never know.
The definition of what Apple is doing is confusing on its face and the poster of this article made it worse.
The iTunes Europe debut is for the rest of Europe, while Germany, France, and the UK already have iTunes. Yes it doesn't make perfect sense, but calling the debut iTunes "rest of Europe" wasn't as catchy.
I'm not a linux geek, but I wish I was. Unfortunately I don't have time to invest as much as I would like to learn the system.
Which is exactly why I don't want to use windows. Windows is an investment just to get it to work reliabily. Put in the CD and it works, but a week later something goes wrong and you have to troubleshoot that. Then you have to troubleshoot this crap and that crap.
These two reasons are why I have always used Macs at home. I don't have time to invest in my machine. I pay a premium up front, but then it magically just works. It always works. It will continue to work. I don't have downtime because my internet connection hiccups. I don't have to update things every 30 seconds to prevent the next worm from bringing down my machine. I don't gradually lose performance because spyware chokes the processor.
Games? Bah... I gave up on serious gaming after Diablo 2. I play Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds by myself along with some hearts, spades, cribbage, solitaire and a few other minor games. someone's always making new versions of card games, and I can play them online thanks to a Safari browser that's more reliable and up to date than IE for the Mac.
Business software? Bah... I find my own tools from shareware and freeware, which are more reliable and easier to use than Microsoft's tools. Plus it's easy to find software that's free, and is compatible with Word's format if you need to find it.
The Mac hardware is an investment, but its an investment in reliability I'm willing to make. Yes would it be nicer if it was cheaper, but wouldn't everything be nicer if it was cheaper?
Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement.
Are you sure? Advertizing bathing suits to Eskimos doesn't necessarily guarentee a return on that money.
The website for Linux Today is very blatantly about Linux. Linux users have a high probability of being anti microsoft.
While I think the chance of pissing off Linux readers is very high and thus losing readership, thus losing hits, thus losing money, I also think such an add has a very small possibility of dragging people away from Linux and towards microsoft's offerings, thus this is a mistargeted ad with little chance of making money.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point, which supports mine. Things should be released as updates, not a brand new engine we have to pay for.
Okay, I find there are Four distinct elements to NWN:
1) The game play rules. These are primarily set by Wizards of the coast. D&D has specific character building rules that NWN follows. NWN2 can't call itself "based on D&D" without following most of those rules. There are some rules, about 1%, which don't translate well to an online vs paper game, so there is play allowed, but not much.
2) The editor. This is already pretty sophisticated. New features added should be added as an update to an already feature rich application, since you can't add much more to it already.
3) The graphics. These could be updated, but that's little more than "prettying up" the game.
4) The scenarios. Okay, you worked hard on it, so make us spend money to reward your efforts, but why not release it as an expansion of the original NWN? It will be cheaper for us, and even if you don't release the damn thing for Mac on time (grumble) at least the mac community knows how to make the PC expansions work without needing a fully native installer.
Basically I see no reason for a brand new engine other than to force people to pay more money than they have to. The other thing is that I see a lot more people's names on this NWN2 than NWN1 so it might be a licensing thing, but frankly that's hurtful to the NWN1 community. You sold the app, but you haven't really let the community milk it as much as it could be.
Because the current state of the industry needs to change! The current state of the industry LACKS competition. Predatory pricing at this level causes these problems. But introduce more companies with more competition and companies will be forced to find a way to lower costs and prices without resorting to predatory pricing.
:)
:)
Agreed. But as I have already said, there are few competitors with the wherewithal to enter the market. Certianly there are none that are willing to build infrastructure. So how do we create this competitive market? Regulation maybe, but maybe not. This is the big problem the FCC faces.
I'm only arguing that it should happen. It probably won't, but if it does it will be a good thing.
And we finally completely agree.
Basically our problem in this discussion is that I'm arguing that it should happen, and you are arguing that it can't happen. See you point out that the way the industry is now, price wars erupt and cause problems. I already know that. All I ever wanted to say was the industry needs to be shaken up and changed. Maybe it can't happen because of the beauracracy, doesn't mean that it shouldn't.
And I'm not comparing South Korea directly to the US. What you are saying is that because people suck, beauracracy sucks, and business sucks that the industry will not be able to change, but I'm saying BECAUSE people suck, beauracracy sucks, and business sucks, things should change. South Korea, for now, has overcome its problems. That's enough hope for me
It's a classic catch 22 argument, I happen to be on the ever so slightly more optimistic side. I'm holding out for that miracle technology or miracle politician.
I also disagree with you on the Vonage topic, because they offload the need for infrastructure onto the internet provider which is a major cost cutting feature. But that's another discussion.
I'm appalled by this statement, and that it was modded up. Tying two products together does not make one a monopoly. Having too much market share makes one a monopoly. Slashdotters still don't understand what a monopoly is, and they really should.
If chevy did what you described, everyone would switch to Ford, Saturn, Nissan, or whoever, because they don't have the car market cornered/
Any such case against apple in this instance is weak. They have 50-60% of the online music market, but they don't have the music market in general cornered by any stretch. You can still buy CDs from hundreds of different places. And you can rip those songs from the CDs and load them on your MP3 player and never even touch the iTMS. People do this quite often (I happen to be one of them).
That doesn't make this tactic any less immoral, it just means that you can't prosecute them. If in 20 years iTMS corners the market on pay for music downloads and 90% of brick and mortar stores stop selling CDs, THEN Apple has a monopoly and should be treated as such.
No, actually I was referring to the US telecom market - since that's what we were discussing.
;)...
:P
:)
Okay, lets get one thing straight. My initial post said the US telecomm industry needed competition, in order to lower prices. You've jumped to the conclusion that this would lead to predatory pricing. How can you make this leap of logic? It doesn't HAVE to lead to predatory pricing. Competition could consist of finding a way to introduct more companies to the telecomm mix. Perhaps companies that use Wireless access points rather than phone or cable lines. This frees the need to use a network of land lines controlled by one company.
And that someone is you
Yeah, that's mature
Actually you said, "Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market." This is not really true. Pricing is one method of making a market non-competitive.
This is ridiculous. If companies don't differentiate themselves from other companies they don't compete. Competing on pricing is one way, and its a proven way that's not detrimental. If I run a company that cuts costs by about 10%, I can pass that savings to a customer, thus competing on price. You are confusing competing on price with predatory pricing. They are two different things and I've mentioned this 4 times, something you've avoided addressing.
Take for example Vonage. I can buy a phone plan from them for $30. A similar plan from verizon on traditional lines is $80 all inclusive (taxes etc). Vonage's costs are lower because they use voice over IP and the service and quality is the same (at least in my opinion it is). THAT'S competiting on price and its non-predatory.
But then we still have the problem of the huge cost of building the facilities. Obviously if the facilities were in place it would be easy to have service-based competition at reasonable prices - and everyone would be happy. But the problem is that some has to build those facilities. And whoever that is will want to be guaranteed huge returns to offset the enormous risk and expenditure that such a construction project would entail...
While this might be true, its only an assumption with no facts. The fact is South Korea did it, so its possible. Your assuming that only a large company could attempt this, while it may be possible for a lot of much smaller companies to compete over areas and offer service in many different areas, thus freeing up the need to have one big huge conglomerate running half the country. The possibilities are endless.
Plus we aren't arguing over the possibility of it happening and the costs of getting into this. I'm only arguing for the introduction of more competition. We'll worry about its possibility later, because its not impossible, and not necessarily improbably. If this argument were about surviving a black hole to sell internet service on the other side, well then maybe we should stop
Walmart is nothing liek telecom companies. This is a bad analogy.
I didn't say walmart was like a telecomm company. I said price based competition is common. In fact I used the word rampant. And AGAIN, price based competition is not necessarily predatory pricing. If I can do the same thing someone else can for less cost, I will lower my price to compete. That's all I'm saying.
That's because in the telecom industry "competitive pricing" inevitably and quickly devolves into price wars.
Because the current state of the industry needs to change! The current state of the industry LACKS competition. Predatory pricing at this level causes these problems. But introduce more companies with more competition and companies will be forced to find a way to lower costs and prices without resorting to predatory pricing.
I agree. But broadband has to exist as a market before it can become competitive. So, someone is going to have to sink in a ton of money in order to
Someone needs to re-take economics 101. Predatory pricing and the resultant price wars are generally bad for the market...
You are assuming that the pricing in South Korea is predatory. You are also assuming competing on price automatically means its predatory pricing. Neither myself nor the article said that or implied that. Predatory pricing is bad, competing on price is not. Someone needs to re-take logic 101.
Companies will try to kill each off through price wars in order to recover a greater share of the market - this is long term good for them but bad for the market and the consumer. Obviously they will not sell services below costs without hope that they can recover the costs later..
Again, assuming predatory pricing. Yes, companies do that. But we have no proof that there is a predatory price war going on here in South Korea (based soley on the article's information). All I said was that competition is good, even on price. Competitive prices does not automatically mean predatory pricing. Plus predatory pricing often happens when dealing with very very large companies that have a lot of capital. The more competition you have, the less likely this works because you can't steal enough market share from all your competitors and remain in business when you sell below cost.
Telecom companies are not like lemonade stands where the cost of market entry is low. It costs a shitload of money to enter the market as a competitor - consequently there are very few companies with the wherewithal to do so. Sadly these generally companies engage (illogically and all to frequently) in price-based competition in order to win market-share. The result is a price war which they ultimately lose with the result being their insolvency.
After potential competitors see their predecessors go down in flames they aren't likely to take a shot themselves. Then we are stuck with the same monopolies that we have now..
AMERICAN Telecomm companies are not like lemonade stands. Yes you are correct about this. However, they have apparently established a framework in South Korea that doesn't tie the framework so tightly to the company, and competition can be healthy, and thus entry into the market can be done at a lower cost. This is what I am getting from the article, and this is what most people are calling for in the US. Untie the wires from the telecomm industry and competition will open dramatically. We've been trying to do that for years without a huge amount of success.
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price
Again, I use the term competitive prices, and you turn it into talking about a price war.
The bottom line is that when there is a lot of competition, prices go down. That's all I'm saying. I didn't mean to imply broadband should drop to $5 or $10 a month in 4 months. I'm just saying open up competition. We'll get better prices AND better service.
Priced based competition, while good for the consumer in the short run, is bad for the indusrty and ultimately hurts the customer as well.
You want a taker? You got a taker. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at this statement. If this statement were true, the entire system of capitalism would have falled on its ass centuries ago and Adam Smith would have been flogged for being a fool.
Price based competition IS Capitalism, and it IS free market. Capitalism is all about competition. Any and all competition is good for the market.
The the ridiculousness of this statement is assuming that costs never go down and that companies will sell service or goods below cost and never expect to get it back. That's stupid. No company is going to sell goods below cost unless they had expected profit to come later. Otherwise the company is mismanaged. It's in a business's self interest not to do that so its not something that happens all that often unless the company is run by flying monkeys.
Yes when one company goes out of business it hurts the industry because there is less competition, but in a highly competitive market with lots of companies this isn't usually a big problem. It's only a problem when you have 3 or 4 very big companies in an industry with high costs of entry.
Also, price based competition is rampant and successful in the US. Walmart has made an art out of it. The secret to price based competition is being able to lower costs so you can afford the lower price. Once you hit rock bottom on costs, that's when you compete on service, but the broadband companies haven't nearly hit rock bottom yet.
The Seoul government's clearly articulated vision for modernising the country's infrastructure stands in stark contrast to the regulatory morass that has stunted development in US telecommunications for several decades. South Korea's policy -- the cornerstone of a national technology initiative to help revive a devastated economy -- has created true broadband competition, which in turn has helped prices fall and speeds rise.
Competition, Competition, Competition. In the 90's, dialup competition was fierce and now its easy to find $10 dialup services just about everywhere.
Now, broadband is primarily in the hands of baby bells and the cable company who charge between $30 to $45 for broadband.
I think you can give some of the success to the ease of installing the infrastructure, but if there was no competition, this would not nearly be the success it would be.
The only way I see competition being restored in the near future in the US is by entrepeneurs setting up wireless internet access points which cover great distances. This will free us of wires which are controlled by state sponsored monopolies.
See, that's the point. Everyone who was born in the US, has no major criminal record, and is over 18 gets a vote in the US, period. That includes stupid people, people with eye problems, elderly people, and people in general who have a hard time adapting to change.
Telling someone they are stupid and should read the ballot is not a possibility here. Exactly how does one draw the line between someone who can or can't vote because they are too stupid? That's the whole philosophy behind the US voting system, is that no one is allowed to draw that line. Plus, one man's stupid decision is another man's honest mistake. You can't make that judgement here.
That being said, the voting system must try to be as accurate as possible. Bush won Florida by less than 1000 votes, and over 2000 votes were invalidated because a number of elderly people couldn't differentiate between which hole was supposed to be for Gore or Pat Buchannon on the ballot. So they simply punched a new hole. Okay, they messed up, but you don't call them stupid for a simple mistake. People only get a chance to vote once a year, and that process can change several times. It needs to be as easy as possible and try to prevent mistakes, and it needs to allow to easily reverse mistakes.
The voting process has to strive for idiot proofness, even if it is not 100%. Punch ballots are simple to make, simple to work, and cheap to buy, but they are by no means idiot proof. They are notoriously inaccurate because of hanging chad, poor ballot layout, and variable accountability when it comes to recounts (i.e. the voting workers had to make a decision as to which ballot counted as a vote and which one was not because the hole may not have been punched properly). We make a big deal about this because of the margin of victory in the last election. We need to make sure every vote counts
An all paper system might work, as in other countries. I like the lever system, because its got a low incidence of error (at least as far as I have seen). Current electronic systems are knee jerk solutions to a real problem, but will end up causing just as many problems without some serious research and design.
I thought this was an article about the new wave in pr0n. I'm so disappointed now.
It would also have an impact on my own personal email system. I have comcast as my ISP now, but I don't use comcast's email. I have a website, and through that I accept email. Because I have my own domain, I don't have to worry about changing my email ever again and everyone can get in touch with me. Fortunately my site comes with a decent spam blocker as well.
And finally, I gain access to that email site via the mail program on my mac. I do this to integrate with my address book, which also integrates with my Treo 270. Everything works nice and neat and I get loads of features and things just work. It would take to look to go into major detail but because of my setup, which has lots of conveniences for me and its what I want, blocking access to my website's email from my connection would royally screw things up.
And I don't host spam lists or anything like that. I should be allowed to access any email server I want thank you. It's the spam servers which have to be localized and taken out.
How many goddamn times do we have to say it here? It's all about the fact that Microsoft is a Monopoly! In a competitive market for nonmonopolies, attempts at vendor lockin like this are annoying but not illegal. They are illegal for monopolies, and they are illegal for a reason! It's been explained ad nauseum here and I can't understand why people mod up these comments. You don't have to hate microsoft, but I would consider the average slashdot to understand monopoly law and the reasons behind it.
1) The price of VoIP's thriftiness
Sounds condescending to me, or designed to be scary, typical tag line to get you worked up over the topic. Passing judgement before the facts are presented.
2) If you have a home alarm system, need to dial 911, use TiVo or simply want your phone number included in the phone book, you're likely to be out of luck.
Home alarm system's and TiVo can change. TiVo is a simple non-essential piece of hardware which should change to accomodate such customers as VOIP catches on. Alarm systems will figure a way around this. Of course, if you feel you can expend money on an alarm system for your home, you can probably afford the current rates your phone company is charging. I'm not saying an alarm system is elitist... its just expensive.
As for phone listing, well damnit who cares? I'll pick up my next pizza. Besides, you can keep your old listing in the phone book when you switch to Vonage and as VOIP catches on this will be taken care of.
As for 911 dialing during power outages, the article willfully and obviously glosses over the possibility that people might have cell phones. This is what makes me feel this is FUDish, because, while the 911 issue is important, the article failed to cover this very important and obvious point. I believe they were afraid that the original alarmist tone of the article would have been defused because 911 dialing is important to everyone, while all those other points are only important to a select few.
3) VoIP certainly has it's selling points--unlimited local and long-distance dialing plans that are about 30 percent cheaper than standard services, dialing from any broadband connection and being able to choose a phone number regardless of your location--the TiVo situation if just the tip of the drawback iceberg.
First, try 50 percent, maybe more. Vonage has a plan for just $15 for 500 talk minutes, anywhere in the country. For local free calling and no special LD plans, Verizon charges me somewhere between $30 and $40.
Second, what the hell is the last part of that paragraph? It seems so cryptic to me.
4) Protecting your home could get tougher, as well. Some home alarm systems have trouble with broadband connections, or their manufacturers don't yet trust the reliability of the Internet.
Back to this a second, this sentences reeks of FUD, because it says "protecting your home could get harder." Not all of us buy alarm systems... goodness! I can't protect my home without a phone? GASP!
5) 911 calls over VoIP are usually routed through a third party, and there's been the occasional detour to an emergency call center in the wrong part of the country. Because of VoIP's mobility--subscribers can use any broadband connection anywhere--emergency operators won't automatically know where the person's calling from.
Facts please? I've heard of no such "detours." Can we have some proof to back this up please? Even instances from the slashdot community would be nice.
And yes, they do tout VOIP as being mobile, and yet 911 calls could be routed back home while you are on the road. However, this will be a learning point for early adopters, but future versions should handle this better. This is by design for the convenience of the customer.
6) The Bell operating companies, comprised of Verizon, Qwest Communications International, SBC and BellSouth, prefer to wait until they build high-speed fiber-optic connections to homes for their all-out VoIP launches. The so-called fiber-to-the-premises initiatives, however, could take a decade or more to complete.
Translation: They don't have the infrastructure yet and they don't want to kill their current phone business too fast
7) Both Cox and Comcast are promising faster VoIP rollouts.
Translation: they are counting on early adopters so that they can eat the baby bells' lunches.
8) Despite its drawbacks, VoIP is attractin
Okay first off lets understand something. Using a Mac or Linux isn't what makes you smart, or even arrogant. Using a PC doesn't make you dumb. This argument has been posed ad nauseum for decades as if to say one group just is smarter than the other.
One group may be smarter than the other, but it has NOTHING to do with actually using the type of computer!
It has everything to do with the life choices that we make and how we go about making decisions. It also has to do with how one has to come about making the choice of Mac or Linux over PC.
First of all, the easiest answer to the question "which operating system should I use?" is going to be a windows PC for at least one or two more decades. Since this is the easiest answer, its the answer most often taken. Lazy people, uninformed people, and people just can't possibly understand how a computer works will take the easy answer.
However, with Macs and Linux, the users arrived at that information differently. They've worked on many machines, perform various functions, and do more than email and surf the web. They are deeper into their computer experience because getting into that experience is important and they learn more. These same people tend to be mroe logical and research their decisions more because that's the nature of everything they do.
Second, the two above statements are not absolutes, they are tendencies. Apple and linux users tend to look more into their computer experience because they want more out of it, but that's not to say there are no PC users who do the same thing. However, due to the tendency that more PC users are simply looking for that "simple answer" this then skews the overall social makeup of the PC user base towards the less analytical and creative of the general american populace.
Third, its all about perception. The easy answer is perceived as easy. You can argue its not so easy, what with bugs and viruses and spyware, and that you will pay for it later. However, that's not what the general populace thinks. In my opinion they are misinformed, but they are definitely underinformed about their choices. Linux and Macs require a larger investment than most people are willing to put in, but if you make that investment it tends to be returned pretty quickly in one form or another. It's just like the way investment bankers work. They know you have to invest to get something back. Most people look at their PC as a TV or Microwave oven. To them it's just an appliance that needs regular updates. A similar investment can be made in a PC, you just go about it differently.
The phrase "Mac/Linux users are smarter/more creative/better than PC users" serves no purpose other than to get people riled up. There are tons of better ways to explain it but they take several paragraphs, like this post does.
Car dealer: Here's our latest spiffiest model the D3! Wanna buy it?
You: Can I take it for a test drive?
Car Dealer: no sorry. We don't allow that any more.
You: so basically it looks really cool, but if I don't like the way it drives, I'm stuck with it? No try before you buy?
Car dealer: ummmm sorry I can't let you test drive this.
You: riiiiiiiiiiiiiight... I'll be going over to your competitor over there. Bye!
The parent post is utter crap. Software is the only package that people have tremendous difficulty returning because of restrictions and such, and games are the worst. If a Game is buggy and I don't like it I should be able to return it. If its going to be so hard to return things, throw me a bone by giving me a demo to try it out first. It's being good to the consumer.
But of course, what do I know? I must be the only one who shares the sentiment of the person you replied to. All the other players who will buy this must love to get screwed by yet another game company.
I happen to like ham sandwiches. Especially with the right cheese and mustard. MMMMMMMmmmmmmm Ham sammich... *head lolls back while drooling commences*
Am I mistaken, or isn't JPEG a lossy compression format? PNG is Loss-less so you can make additional changes to it, but JPEG is a final format and it purposefully loses information that the image display doesn't need.
Ergo, JPEGs can possibly be smaller in lots of instances, even outside of photographs, if the image is just right.
Do I have this completely wrong?
Don't get me wrong, this is great for the current system of taking 2 hrs to get people through security checkpoints, loaded onto the plane, along with tons of luggage, and then offloading them.
I just took a flight to boston from Philadelphia. The entire trip from parking at philadelphia to landing at boston took close to 3 hrs. It's probably 6 hours drive to boston. I'm not really saving much time here. Fortunately my company paid for it, but it was amazingly expensive because it was booked last minute for a customer.
What I want to see is the Air Taxi system that NASA and the FAA were working on. This was an overhaul in the Air Traffic control system which would open up new options in air travel. An Air Taxi could simply be a small prop or smaller jet plane that would be cheaper to fly and maintain, and it would be a lot easier to get on and off... like a taxi!
Or how about some MagLev trains? A 300+ Mph train on a safe and easy to maintain elevated track. If we could just find a way to create the infrastructure, we could make transportation more affordable and easier.
As it stands, our current system is old and antiquated and inconvenient... and expensive! We need some disruptive technologies to get a foothold. Changing the nature of travel will solve more problems than trying to put patches on the current system. I consider this RF solution a patch on a much larger problem.
Always follow the money.
Verizon was hit hard by the RIAAs attempts to supoena the names of their users. It's not in Verizon's best interests to give up such names, because they make money on services, not software. The DMCA has severe effects on software and copywrited files. Verizon doesn't give a rats ass (as they should not) as to what goes across their networks, as long as people pay for the right to use those lines.
If people lose privacy and anonymity by using Verizon because they are the target of the RIAA, Verizon will lose customers. Verizon can't afford that.
Also note companies like Comcast and AOL/Time Warner who are cable companies who are NOT on that list. They provide internet services, but they are also part of larger media conglomerates that want their media content providers preserved.
Nintendo has always been late in delivery, but Nintendo and Sony's game markets don't over lap very much. If you only have a one console game house, here's how it breaks out:
1) Nintendo is usually for younger kids and more conscious parents who want their kids to have fun but want games like Pokemon, Mario, Zelda, or other similar games they approve of. They are more cartoony, less violent, and suitable for youngsters. Nintendo's market is smaller but its a tight niche and Nintendo works just fine in that niche and PS2 has a hard time cracking that niche.
2) PSX and PS2 are more for teens and adults, especially hardcore gamers. They always have and by establishing their niche, they have a wide range of games.
These two platforms have different niches and have differentiated themselves in order to compete, which is the whole point of capitalism.
3) xbox pretty much seems to appear to be another flavor of PS2. I don't know if there are any differences, except that PS2 has more games. At best I've noticed some games which historically were for or were going to be for PCs are showing up on xbox, but I'm not sure.
And therein lies the problem. The only thing I know that differentiates the PS2 from the xbox is the games! I'm joe average gamer, not some hardcore player who buys all the platforms and 500 games. How can xbox compete?
Now, it becomes a catch 22 to try to eat a competitors lunch when there is nothing to say you are better than the competitor. What this move does do is a risky attempt to say "we are better because we are first!!!"
If they are first, more developers may flock to them,m and people may accept this argument of first being better
OR
More developers may get pissed because their old xbox development investment was blown because they ended the first console's life cycle way early. Also, people may reject it, because of its reputation.
We know that Nintendo doesn't have to be first to market to keep its niche satisfied. We also know those other first to market consoles like Dreamcast, 3D0, Saturn, etc, were flops.
So the question is will the Xbox2 get lucky? It's decidedly against that possibility but you never know.
It took a whiny loser bringing down 3000 web logs to remind me to back up my own! I hadn't backed mine up in months. What funny karma....
The definition of what Apple is doing is confusing on its face and the poster of this article made it worse.
The iTunes Europe debut is for the rest of Europe, while Germany, France, and the UK already have iTunes. Yes it doesn't make perfect sense, but calling the debut iTunes "rest of Europe" wasn't as catchy.
Seagate is the first hdd manufacturer to announce 400 GB 3.5" hard drives.
Seagate tenatively plans to call this line of hard drives the "Pornotopia" series.
I'm not a linux geek, but I wish I was. Unfortunately I don't have time to invest as much as I would like to learn the system.
Which is exactly why I don't want to use windows. Windows is an investment just to get it to work reliabily. Put in the CD and it works, but a week later something goes wrong and you have to troubleshoot that. Then you have to troubleshoot this crap and that crap.
These two reasons are why I have always used Macs at home. I don't have time to invest in my machine. I pay a premium up front, but then it magically just works. It always works. It will continue to work. I don't have downtime because my internet connection hiccups. I don't have to update things every 30 seconds to prevent the next worm from bringing down my machine. I don't gradually lose performance because spyware chokes the processor.
Games? Bah... I gave up on serious gaming after Diablo 2. I play Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds by myself along with some hearts, spades, cribbage, solitaire and a few other minor games. someone's always making new versions of card games, and I can play them online thanks to a Safari browser that's more reliable and up to date than IE for the Mac.
Business software? Bah... I find my own tools from shareware and freeware, which are more reliable and easier to use than Microsoft's tools. Plus it's easy to find software that's free, and is compatible with Word's format if you need to find it.
The Mac hardware is an investment, but its an investment in reliability I'm willing to make. Yes would it be nicer if it was cheaper, but wouldn't everything be nicer if it was cheaper?
Microsoft (theoretically) makes more than $2000 from that advertisement.
Are you sure? Advertizing bathing suits to Eskimos doesn't necessarily guarentee a return on that money.
The website for Linux Today is very blatantly about Linux. Linux users have a high probability of being anti microsoft.
While I think the chance of pissing off Linux readers is very high and thus losing readership, thus losing hits, thus losing money, I also think such an add has a very small possibility of dragging people away from Linux and towards microsoft's offerings, thus this is a mistargeted ad with little chance of making money.