Wrong. Linus is a member of the Slashdot community. I don't believe he said that, and if he did please provide sources. http://slashdot.org/~linustorvalds
Well, because the only way you can get rich innovating is if the law forbids every slacker sitting around doing nothing from immediately copying your invention (or work of art) and (since he doesn't have to pay back the enormous loans you took out to support yourself while developing your idea), undercut you by 50% on price and drive you promptly into bankruptcy.
It should be added that the laws don't just protect a creator from slackers, it protects him from corporations. As much as Disney and Microsoft abuse copyright and patent laws, these laws are also fundamental protection to keep companies with much more money and many more lawyers from stealing (and/or subverting) the intellectual property of the little guy-- be it a lone inventor, a writer, even an upstart tech company with a good idea.
Apart from easy questions like, why can't I blow a hole through a wall? (Red Faction came close to this.)
I really can't fathom why more use wasn't made of "Geo-Mod". Why hasn't another developer either purchased or duplicated it? I still play Red Faction multiplayer occasionally, and the ability to blow a strategic hole in the wall or hiding place in the ground here and there is pretty fantastic-- and makes it so no two multiplayer games are ever alike.
I never really understood why THQ dropped the franchise like they did, there was a lot of promise there...
Channels like HBO and Showtime offer all of their programming free to subscribers on Comcast In Demand.
What makes time-shifting Survivor worth 99 cents when I can time-shift The Sopranos for free?
As an aside I really hope HBO tries the pay-to-download mode for non-subscribers. I know I'm not the norm, but I would certainly support it-- I got rid of cable because I don't watch much TV and couldn't justify $70 a month for the Daily Show and Deadwood, but I would most definitely pay a few bucks an episode to be able to download The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.
Seems like a natural to me, since they're not ad supported anyway. The fact that their programs are some of, if not the most widely distributed torrents should indicate this would be a success. Weren't they also pioneers of the TV series to video/DVD market?
He's right... Just an an example I have a Powermac desktop (mostly for Final Cut) and a cheapo Acer laptop for Office and a specialized application I need for work. I know at least two guys with tricked-out Windows rigs for gaming and Power or iBooks for everything else. I know a few couples who have one Mac and PC in the house-- in fact I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of households and businesses with both systems, mixed and matched for need or personal taste.
We're well past the era where having a couple of systems at your disposal is a novelty, and this whole notion that an OS requires a pledge of allegiance is ridiculous. But I guess the Mac press would wither and die without endless self congratulation, and the PC trolls would do likewise if there was noone to hear their cries of why Macs are Teh Sux.
... Have you ever passed through Livejournal, Myspace, etc.? It's more than half, more likely 2/3 women (and girls.) Take a look at one of those pages that shows the last 50 images sent to livejournal. You're going to see lots and lots of women. Most of them taking pictures of themselves in the mirror.
Do you think women don't game? Sure they do, check out the Pogo and Yahoo games. Quite a few women there too.
How about AIM? Would instant messaging even exist if not for chatty teen girls?
And then there's ebay, and shopping, and...
This isn't 1994 and the internet's not the geek ghetto it was. Women have wholeheartedly embraced it, especially of course the younger generation. So what's the complaint? Is it that women don't like FPS games and MMPORGs, except for those exceptions that prove the rule? Guess what, the sexes tend to be kind of different, and maybe, perhaps, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I like the idea of competition. China, the EU, US, or maybe even the UN (just joking), someone will eventually go back to the moon and start new missions from there. And I like the idea of a moon based telescope. Great times!
That's well and good, but I'm afraid we're going to lose that competition. Perhaps because life is cheap in a communist society of billions of people, they will not be deterred by setbacks-- such as the death of a taikonaut. We, on the other hand, shut down progress for years with every shuttle disaster. Our hearts aren't in it.
Not that I think our astronauts should be recklessly placed in harm's way, but we have lost the pioneer spirit that once made our country great.
Maybe actual competition-- such as seeing a real tangible benefit from establishing a stronghold on the moon, or even Mars-- will spur us on. I hope so.
I don't really believe Apple is all that worried about rampant piracy of OSX. They certainly haven't been in the past. This might change with the switch, but when has OSX ever been copy protected? Some install disks are restricted to certain machines-- like IIRC iBook disks won't install on Powermacs-- but unlike Windows there is no license to enter and no need to "call home" if you don't want to register. If you "borrow" a store-bought update all you're missing out on is phone support.
Yeah, it's going to be pirated on Intel, but so what? Hopefully they'll realize that total lockdown is a battle not worth fighting. Making it impossible for the casual user to install (via a simple hardware check) will take a fraction of the effort and accomplish nearly all the benefits of a supposedly airtight copy protection scheme that will be cracked the next day anyway.
Why do we need it? I learned in business never to write or say anything proprietary that you don't want others to know.
Copyright is basically using the force of government to enact a monopoly on thought. I'm not sure the process of thought should be regulated or licensed.
I think you're wrong about the government's intent, because copyright law is fundamentally a protection available basically for free to anyone who has an idea. A penniless nobody working in obscurity has as much right to copyright a story he writes as Disney does to their latest movie.
I'm NOT a content creator, but even I can see that copyright law serves a much-needed purpose. Yeah, it's too far-reaching right now and we need a much shorter term before it hits the public domain, but it does protect the creator's vision and intent as much as their right to profit from their creation. Meaning someone stronger (financially or otherwise) can't swoop in and put their name on something you create, or chop it up so much without your permission that the orginal meaning is changed or destroyed. Or make a profit without negotiating to give you a share.
These things may not seem important to you, but we live in a society where intellectual property has value-- potentially a LOT of value, and if there's a profit to be made I would hope the orginal creator would have a right to his or her share (as well as their say in what is done with their creation.)
I don't like the idea of laws that foresee possible misuses of technology in the future, because by their nature they would have to be so vague that they would almost certainly have an adverse affect on freedom. Of course the DMCA is an example of this.
Really, it should be extremely difficult to pass a new law, and it should be clear that there is a solid need for it. Yes, that means the first people who commit crimes using new technology in new ways may not be prosecuted (note that I'm not talking about using new technology to commit EXISTING crimes), but that's better than the alternative. (And I wouldn't say in this case the kid got away scot free-- he was prosecuted, which at the very least is a scary thing, and potentially costly in legal bills as well.)
Oh and yeah, that kind of sucks for the victim, but in some cases (like this) the matter could at least be taken to civil trial.
Nowdays, especially for large binary data, it's beyond obsolete - it's silly.
You're correct, of course, but what's the alternative? If it was scrapped (not that something that has no real center or base of operations can really be scrapped) then whatever beast replaced it certainly wouldn't allow the complete freedom we have right now.
Usenet's really just "one of those things." It's horribly inefficient, it takes some know-how and a lot of patience to access, but the rewards are worth it.
I don't get why this question has to be asked over and over again, almost always by people who've never even seen one in person.
Look, it's a neat little toy. It's not supposed to replace your TV at home. A movie with intricate special effects like LOTR is a pain to watch, yes, but most TV looks fine (I watch The Daily Show on mine.) Animation looks great, too (like The Family Guy.)
Really, the screen is much larger than a Game Boy... I don't see that many complaints hurled against Nintendo, like "How can you play games on such a tiny screen?"
It's also notable that a 1 in 12 statistic is not as far off of american cinema as you would like to believe.
Really? Can you back that up? Because I don't really think you know what you're talking about. Most American movies make a profit. It may take years, but after DVDs, rentals and foreign markets there's a profit. We call a movie a failure and a flop if it doesn't make its money back in the first few weeks, but it's pretty rare that a movie will actually take a loss.
Foreign markets, by the way, are a huge cash cow for most American films... Even our worst will be shown in theaters and on TV worldwide-- in fact the worst often do quite well, because dumbed-down action flicks and broad sex comedies translate better than movies driven by dialogue and characters. Bollywood, on the other hand, doesn't make it out of India except for a few British or North American specialty stores and theaters.
Sorry, but the comparison doesn't work. You're trying to make sense out of a business that makes no sense, entertainment. The entire business is built on the concept of "get rich quick." It's also built on screwing over the other guy as much as possible, which is the reason why we have actor and writer guilds, and is the reason why most TV programs (and many movies) have tangled webs of rights that make it difficult to easily distribute them when new mediums pop up.
Have you ever had a job that required some diplomacy? I don't think he's a mental midget. He's giving the answer he needs to give to satisfy the people who need to be satisfied-- the investors, the distributors, basically the "suits".
Read between the lines, he doesn't even acknowledge the no-cd crack issue. I'm sure he personally doesn't care, but can't say as much. I understand, it's Slashdot, let's spout firebrand politics. Unfortunately in the real world it takes capital to release a game. If he said, "Fuck you, we're not protecting this game" he's be out of a job. If the developers said it, they'd lose their backing and distribution.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
I think you're overreacting if you cancelled local service because of this. A 911 call HAS to be taken seriously. They can't just go on the word of whoever answers the door that the call was a mistake, what if there was an abducted child locked in the back room? Or a battered wife? Or an elderly person who fell and couldn't call for help, but was able to dial 911? Those are long shots, but they happen... And the person who greets the cops after a 911 call may be unaware of any problem-- or may even be the CAUSE of the problem...
I know it's Slashdot and we're supposed to hate Big Brother, but your case has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Local cops aren't Nazi Stormtroopers or the KGB (or the CIA.) Believe it or not, they're often people who want to make the community a better place.
Re:NES #1? Ignorance.
on
20 Years of NES
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It's foolish, revisionist history to say that Americans hated videogames. Does anyone remember Pac Man fever? The album? It was a phenomenon. There was a veritable ton of Pac Man schwag (cheesy merchandise like bubble gum dispensers, keychains, Rubik's cube knockoffs, etc.) showing strong evidence of video games' pre-Nintendo dominance in American culture.
I was 14 or 15 around the time and remember it well. A few years before, everyone loved games. Every family had an Atari. Every mall had an arcade. EVERYONE played games. Even parents. And girls. Then, there was a crash, for whatever reason-- most likely because even the best games were limited and got boring fast. In 1984-5, if you liked video games, you owned a Commodore 64. The days of families-- or really anyone but pasty-faced geeks-- buying consoles and games was very much over. That is, until Nintendo revolutionized the market. Their games were light years beyond previous generation because they weren't just three screens of action that repeated until you died, they were fun and interesting worlds that could be explored. And unlike the typical Atari game that just got faster and faster on the same screen until you inevitably died, Nintendo games could be beaten and won.
As for revisionism-- I don't think there's any shortage of Pac Man or Atari nostalgia, especially on the web. 32-in-1 Atari joysticks sell by the millions and I see 20-somethings in vintage game shirts all the time. Are you really trying to suggest that no one remembers that era?
I'm very weary of articles, especially on boingboing.net, that pitch Mario Bros. as the original videogame. You all should be making fan art of Yar's Revenge, Pitfall and River Raid.
I haven't seen many articles like that, but I'll believe you. But I think this is a key to why Nintendo is so beloved-- you don't give a shit about Yar and why he wants revenge, or what the River Raid plane's mission was. You don't really even care why Pac Man does whatever he does. Nintendo's games and characters-- Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc.-- have a story and a soul. They may look primitive now, but at the time they felt like cartoons brought to life.
Re:The show will need local humor appeal
on
Homer Becomes Omar
·
· Score: 1
Taking Homer and stripping out all of the Americanisms isn't going to make it funny to people with a mideast cultural sense of humor (it would probably be funnier if they just left the Americanisms in). Homer is a success in America because we are laughing at ourselves. I would bet Omar could be as much of a success if the show could present the same kind of local irreverent humor about life there like it does for life in the US.
Well, we do it too. Look at the Office, one of the funniest British shows ever to air. The characters have accents, yes, but the situations are completely identifiable. NBC's remake is decent, but it's a pale imitation of the original.
Hell, I'm amazed anyone is actually planning on buying ANY Apple hardware based on the obsolete PowerPC architecture.
Let's count the reasons why I'm planning on staying with PowerPC...
- I have thousands of dollars worth of PowerPC software. It does exactly what I need it to do and will continue to do so. I am not looking forward to upgrading to a dozen new versions, especially if the only major improvement will be that it runs on the new processor.
- It's never the best idea to buy the first version of Apple anything. I'm not going to pay a premium to be Apple's guinea pig. Let someone else work out the kinks, I'm stick with the rock-solid last generation.
- This is just a guess, but I have the feeling Intel Macs may have embedded DRM that will prevent certain grey-area activities (ahem, DVD ripping or running cRaCkEd ApPz)... In a couple years we could be lamenting the freedom we had with the PowerPC. We also don't know if they will be more susceptible to viruses and malware.
- Most likely, when the Intel Macs are released you'll be able to pick up refurb or leftover PowerPC systems with full warranty at a deep discount. This $3,299 Quad G5 is going to cost 1/2 to 2/3 as much, or possibly even less on the day the announce the Intel Powermac.
Bottom line, I'm waiting to make the switch until I have to-- like when a new version of Final Cut comes out with a feature I desperately need.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a system that would work, but you can be sure there are many possibilities. All you have to do is seperate identity from authorization and then provide your vote. i.e., you need authorization to vote, and you need to identify yourself to get authorization, but it can be cryptographically shown that you can't tie the authorization token to the identity.
Of course it CAN be done. Problem is, the people who would be trusted to do it would be the same who would benefit most from NOT doing it.
The record labels are horrible beasts, but at least we know where we stand with them-- they own a song outright and have ultimate say as to what can be done and what the price should be. Television shows, on the other hand, are based on many complicated deals that extend far into the the future-- and they have to be, because there are a lot of people (and companies) involved in a production who all want their share of potential revenue. It's not all about the first run ad dollars.
"Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" are Touchstone productions, so Disney has a lot more control over their distribution. That's not always or even often the case-- many times a network works with a separate production company, and if it's an older show someone else may have the rights to syndication. Which basically means the contracts for many programs, especially those "in the vault", are going to have to be renegotiated before a network can make them available for download, and some won't be available at all. It also means $2 downloads may not end up being the standard.
I wouldn't be surprised if the guilds got involved, too. Actors, writers, and directors are due royalties from syndication and DVD compilations. Are they going to get a cut of that $2? Their contracts most likely specified terms for residuals from reruns, but what's their cut of an iTunes download? This will be addressed in every contract from today forward, but what about the ones in place now (and the ones from a decade ago?)
On the bright side, what I've noticed on Apple's marketing is that they keep slipping in references to "video podcasts"-- which at the moment barely exist. This could mean iTunes could branch into a new distribution channel for indie programs, like how Netflix is having some success as the sole distributor of certain movies.) It could be both the "bush leagues" for aspiring shows, or the place where shows with a fan base but who can't get the numbers to stay on the air (like Futurama or Freaks and Geeks) could end up.
If you paid $20 for content on UMD so you could watch it on a tiny little screen, you deserve to be shot. Spending $20+ on a full sized DVD that you can watch on your widescreen television once or twice in your life is absurd enough, much less this PSP UMD nonsense. But it just proves, people will buy anything!
Damn straight. You could buy 5 or 6 ringtones for that $20.
I think the *biggest thing* is the fact you can now download TV shows, like Lost, for $1.99 an episode. I think that's pretty earth shattering...a 3 minute pop video, or a 45 minute TV show for the same price?
You can't measure that way. If you like the 3-minute song, you could potentially play it thousands of times. But you probably won't watch that episode of "Lost" more than once, maybe a few more times if you're a fanboy.
I also would not get so attached to the price for TV downloads. The waters are being tested to see what the market will bear. If downloading proves to be a popular means of getting TV content, that's going to compete with broadcast TV... And the backbone of TV is advertising. They're going to have to come up with new methods of embedding ads, or charge more per download.
Gee no parent ever gets there children credit cards in america. Age verification via credit card is not even close to fool proof.
Really though, it might as well be consent. If a parent gives a teen a credit card the kid has either proven themself to be extremely trustworthy, or the parent's so rich or out of it he doesn't give a fuck what little Dylan/Dakota/Paris does. A 16-year old with a credit card can get in a lot more trouble than buying an M-rated game with 3-D models of boobs.
I don't think the hotel example makes a good case for the technology. We have laptops because they're portable and convenient, not just to be able to go between set workstations. You can't take a USB stick on a plane, to a cafe, etc.
Not to mention, I would never touch a hotel room computer keyboard that God knows how many lonely travellers have done God knows what to before I got there...
But what if you applied the same principal to your own computers? Say a powerful desktop and ultra-portable laptop that both ran from the same swappable flash drive? Or a drive that you could take from work to home, so you can have the same experience on both systems? No more remote desktops and transferring files back and forth...
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Linus is a member of the Slashdot community. I don't believe he said that, and if he did please provide sources.
http://slashdot.org/~linustorvalds
Well, because the only way you can get rich innovating is if the law forbids every slacker sitting around doing nothing from immediately copying your invention (or work of art) and (since he doesn't have to pay back the enormous loans you took out to support yourself while developing your idea), undercut you by 50% on price and drive you promptly into bankruptcy.
It should be added that the laws don't just protect a creator from slackers, it protects him from corporations. As much as Disney and Microsoft abuse copyright and patent laws, these laws are also fundamental protection to keep companies with much more money and many more lawyers from stealing (and/or subverting) the intellectual property of the little guy-- be it a lone inventor, a writer, even an upstart tech company with a good idea.
Apart from easy questions like, why can't I blow a hole through a wall? (Red Faction came close to this.)
I really can't fathom why more use wasn't made of "Geo-Mod". Why hasn't another developer either purchased or duplicated it? I still play Red Faction multiplayer occasionally, and the ability to blow a strategic hole in the wall or hiding place in the ground here and there is pretty fantastic-- and makes it so no two multiplayer games are ever alike.
I never really understood why THQ dropped the franchise like they did, there was a lot of promise there...
Channels like HBO and Showtime offer all of their programming free to subscribers on Comcast In Demand.
What makes time-shifting Survivor worth 99 cents when I can time-shift The Sopranos for free?
As an aside I really hope HBO tries the pay-to-download mode for non-subscribers. I know I'm not the norm, but I would certainly support it-- I got rid of cable because I don't watch much TV and couldn't justify $70 a month for the Daily Show and Deadwood, but I would most definitely pay a few bucks an episode to be able to download The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.
Seems like a natural to me, since they're not ad supported anyway. The fact that their programs are some of, if not the most widely distributed torrents should indicate this would be a success. Weren't they also pioneers of the TV series to video/DVD market?
He's right... Just an an example I have a Powermac desktop (mostly for Final Cut) and a cheapo Acer laptop for Office and a specialized application I need for work. I know at least two guys with tricked-out Windows rigs for gaming and Power or iBooks for everything else. I know a few couples who have one Mac and PC in the house-- in fact I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of households and businesses with both systems, mixed and matched for need or personal taste.
We're well past the era where having a couple of systems at your disposal is a novelty, and this whole notion that an OS requires a pledge of allegiance is ridiculous. But I guess the Mac press would wither and die without endless self congratulation, and the PC trolls would do likewise if there was noone to hear their cries of why Macs are Teh Sux.
... Have you ever passed through Livejournal, Myspace, etc.? It's more than half, more likely 2/3 women (and girls.) Take a look at one of those pages that shows the last 50 images sent to livejournal. You're going to see lots and lots of women. Most of them taking pictures of themselves in the mirror.
Do you think women don't game? Sure they do, check out the Pogo and Yahoo games. Quite a few women there too.
How about AIM? Would instant messaging even exist if not for chatty teen girls?
And then there's ebay, and shopping, and...
This isn't 1994 and the internet's not the geek ghetto it was. Women have wholeheartedly embraced it, especially of course the younger generation. So what's the complaint? Is it that women don't like FPS games and MMPORGs, except for those exceptions that prove the rule? Guess what, the sexes tend to be kind of different, and maybe, perhaps, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I like the idea of competition. China, the EU, US, or maybe even the UN (just joking), someone will eventually go back to the moon and start new missions from there. And I like the idea of a moon based telescope. Great times!
That's well and good, but I'm afraid we're going to lose that competition. Perhaps because life is cheap in a communist society of billions of people, they will not be deterred by setbacks-- such as the death of a taikonaut.
We, on the other hand, shut down progress for years with every shuttle disaster. Our hearts aren't in it.
Not that I think our astronauts should be recklessly placed in harm's way, but we have lost the pioneer spirit that once made our country great.
Maybe actual competition-- such as seeing a real tangible benefit from establishing a stronghold on the moon, or even Mars-- will spur us on. I hope so.
I don't really believe Apple is all that worried about rampant piracy of OSX. They certainly haven't been in the past. This might change with the switch, but when has OSX ever been copy protected? Some install disks are restricted to certain machines-- like IIRC iBook disks won't install on Powermacs-- but unlike Windows there is no license to enter and no need to "call home" if you don't want to register. If you "borrow" a store-bought update all you're missing out on is phone support.
Yeah, it's going to be pirated on Intel, but so what? Hopefully they'll realize that total lockdown is a battle not worth fighting. Making it impossible for the casual user to install (via a simple hardware check) will take a fraction of the effort and accomplish nearly all the benefits of a supposedly airtight copy protection scheme that will be cracked the next day anyway.
Why do we need it? I learned in business never to write or say anything proprietary that you don't want others to know.
Copyright is basically using the force of government to enact a monopoly on thought. I'm not sure the process of thought should be regulated or licensed.
I think you're wrong about the government's intent, because copyright law is fundamentally a protection available basically for free to anyone who has an idea. A penniless nobody working in obscurity has as much right to copyright a story he writes as Disney does to their latest movie.
I'm NOT a content creator, but even I can see that copyright law serves a much-needed purpose. Yeah, it's too far-reaching right now and we need a much shorter term before it hits the public domain, but it does protect the creator's vision and intent as much as their right to profit from their creation. Meaning someone stronger (financially or otherwise) can't swoop in and put their name on something you create, or chop it up so much without your permission that the orginal meaning is changed or destroyed. Or make a profit without negotiating to give you a share.
These things may not seem important to you, but we live in a society where intellectual property has value-- potentially a LOT of value, and if there's a profit to be made I would hope the orginal creator would have a right to his or her share (as well as their say in what is done with their creation.)
I don't like the idea of laws that foresee possible misuses of technology in the future, because by their nature they would have to be so vague that they would almost certainly have an adverse affect on freedom. Of course the DMCA is an example of this.
Really, it should be extremely difficult to pass a new law, and it should be clear that there is a solid need for it. Yes, that means the first people who commit crimes using new technology in new ways may not be prosecuted (note that I'm not talking about using new technology to commit EXISTING crimes), but that's better than the alternative. (And I wouldn't say in this case the kid got away scot free-- he was prosecuted, which at the very least is a scary thing, and potentially costly in legal bills as well.)
Oh and yeah, that kind of sucks for the victim, but in some cases (like this) the matter could at least be taken to civil trial.
Nowdays, especially for large binary data, it's beyond obsolete - it's silly.
You're correct, of course, but what's the alternative? If it was scrapped (not that something that has no real center or base of operations can really be scrapped) then whatever beast replaced it certainly wouldn't allow the complete freedom we have right now.
Usenet's really just "one of those things." It's horribly inefficient, it takes some know-how and a lot of patience to access, but the rewards are worth it.
I don't get why this question has to be asked over and over again, almost always by people who've never even seen one in person.
Look, it's a neat little toy. It's not supposed to replace your TV at home. A movie with intricate special effects like LOTR is a pain to watch, yes, but most TV looks fine (I watch The Daily Show on mine.) Animation looks great, too (like The Family Guy.)
Really, the screen is much larger than a Game Boy... I don't see that many complaints hurled against Nintendo, like "How can you play games on such a tiny screen?"
It's also notable that a 1 in 12 statistic is not as far off of american cinema as you would like to believe.
Really? Can you back that up? Because I don't really think you know what you're talking about. Most American movies make a profit. It may take years, but after DVDs, rentals and foreign markets there's a profit. We call a movie a failure and a flop if it doesn't make its money back in the first few weeks, but it's pretty rare that a movie will actually take a loss.
Foreign markets, by the way, are a huge cash cow for most American films... Even our worst will be shown in theaters and on TV worldwide-- in fact the worst often do quite well, because dumbed-down action flicks and broad sex comedies translate better than movies driven by dialogue and characters. Bollywood, on the other hand, doesn't make it out of India except for a few British or North American specialty stores and theaters.
Sorry, but the comparison doesn't work. You're trying to make sense out of a business that makes no sense, entertainment. The entire business is built on the concept of "get rich quick." It's also built on screwing over the other guy as much as possible, which is the reason why we have actor and writer guilds, and is the reason why most TV programs (and many movies) have tangled webs of rights that make it difficult to easily distribute them when new mediums pop up.
Have you ever had a job that required some diplomacy? I don't think he's a mental midget. He's giving the answer he needs to give to satisfy the people who need to be satisfied-- the investors, the distributors, basically the "suits".
Read between the lines, he doesn't even acknowledge the no-cd crack issue. I'm sure he personally doesn't care, but can't say as much. I understand, it's Slashdot, let's spout firebrand politics. Unfortunately in the real world it takes capital to release a game. If he said, "Fuck you, we're not protecting this game" he's be out of a job. If the developers said it, they'd lose their backing and distribution.
I think you're overreacting if you cancelled local service because of this. A 911 call HAS to be taken seriously. They can't just go on the word of whoever answers the door that the call was a mistake, what if there was an abducted child locked in the back room? Or a battered wife? Or an elderly person who fell and couldn't call for help, but was able to dial 911? Those are long shots, but they happen... And the person who greets the cops after a 911 call may be unaware of any problem-- or may even be the CAUSE of the problem...
I know it's Slashdot and we're supposed to hate Big Brother, but your case has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Local cops aren't Nazi Stormtroopers or the KGB (or the CIA.) Believe it or not, they're often people who want to make the community a better place.
It's foolish, revisionist history to say that Americans hated videogames. Does anyone remember Pac Man fever? The album? It was a phenomenon. There was a veritable ton of Pac Man schwag (cheesy merchandise like bubble gum dispensers, keychains, Rubik's cube knockoffs, etc.) showing strong evidence of video games' pre-Nintendo dominance in American culture.
I was 14 or 15 around the time and remember it well. A few years before, everyone loved games. Every family had an Atari. Every mall had an arcade. EVERYONE played games. Even parents. And girls. Then, there was a crash, for whatever reason-- most likely because even the best games were limited and got boring fast. In 1984-5, if you liked video games, you owned a Commodore 64. The days of families-- or really anyone but pasty-faced geeks-- buying consoles and games was very much over. That is, until Nintendo revolutionized the market. Their games were light years beyond previous generation because they weren't just three screens of action that repeated until you died, they were fun and interesting worlds that could be explored. And unlike the typical Atari game that just got faster and faster on the same screen until you inevitably died, Nintendo games could be beaten and won.
As for revisionism-- I don't think there's any shortage of Pac Man or Atari nostalgia, especially on the web. 32-in-1 Atari joysticks sell by the millions and I see 20-somethings in vintage game shirts all the time. Are you really trying to suggest that no one remembers that era?
I'm very weary of articles, especially on boingboing.net, that pitch Mario Bros. as the original videogame. You all should be making fan art of Yar's Revenge, Pitfall and River Raid.
I haven't seen many articles like that, but I'll believe you. But I think this is a key to why Nintendo is so beloved-- you don't give a shit about Yar and why he wants revenge, or what the River Raid plane's mission was. You don't really even care why Pac Man does whatever he does. Nintendo's games and characters-- Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc.-- have a story and a soul. They may look primitive now, but at the time they felt like cartoons brought to life.
Taking Homer and stripping out all of the Americanisms isn't going to make it funny to people with a mideast cultural sense of humor (it would probably be funnier if they just left the Americanisms in). Homer is a success in America because we are laughing at ourselves. I would bet Omar could be as much of a success if the show could present the same kind of local irreverent humor about life there like it does for life in the US.
Well, we do it too. Look at the Office, one of the funniest British shows ever to air. The characters have accents, yes, but the situations are completely identifiable. NBC's remake is decent, but it's a pale imitation of the original.
Hell, I'm amazed anyone is actually planning on buying ANY Apple hardware based on the obsolete PowerPC architecture.
Let's count the reasons why I'm planning on staying with PowerPC...
- I have thousands of dollars worth of PowerPC software. It does exactly what I need it to do and will continue to do so. I am not looking forward to upgrading to a dozen new versions, especially if the only major improvement will be that it runs on the new processor.
- It's never the best idea to buy the first version of Apple anything. I'm not going to pay a premium to be Apple's guinea pig. Let someone else work out the kinks, I'm stick with the rock-solid last generation.
- This is just a guess, but I have the feeling Intel Macs may have embedded DRM that will prevent certain grey-area activities (ahem, DVD ripping or running cRaCkEd ApPz)... In a couple years we could be lamenting the freedom we had with the PowerPC. We also don't know if they will be more susceptible to viruses and malware.
- Most likely, when the Intel Macs are released you'll be able to pick up refurb or leftover PowerPC systems with full warranty at a deep discount. This $3,299 Quad G5 is going to cost 1/2 to 2/3 as much, or possibly even less on the day the announce the Intel Powermac.
Bottom line, I'm waiting to make the switch until I have to-- like when a new version of Final Cut comes out with a feature I desperately need.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a system that would work, but you can be sure there are many possibilities. All you have to do is seperate identity from authorization and then provide your vote. i.e., you need authorization to vote, and you need to identify yourself to get authorization, but it can be cryptographically shown that you can't tie the authorization token to the identity.
Of course it CAN be done. Problem is, the people who would be trusted to do it would be the same who would benefit most from NOT doing it.
The record labels are horrible beasts, but at least we know where we stand with them-- they own a song outright and have ultimate say as to what can be done and what the price should be. Television shows, on the other hand, are based on many complicated deals that extend far into the the future-- and they have to be, because there are a lot of people (and companies) involved in a production who all want their share of potential revenue. It's not all about the first run ad dollars.
"Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" are Touchstone productions, so Disney has a lot more control over their distribution. That's not always or even often the case-- many times a network works with a separate production company, and if it's an older show someone else may have the rights to syndication. Which basically means the contracts for many programs, especially those "in the vault", are going to have to be renegotiated before a network can make them available for download, and some won't be available at all. It also means $2 downloads may not end up being the standard.
I wouldn't be surprised if the guilds got involved, too. Actors, writers, and directors are due royalties from syndication and DVD compilations. Are they going to get a cut of that $2? Their contracts most likely specified terms for residuals from reruns, but what's their cut of an iTunes download? This will be addressed in every contract from today forward, but what about the ones in place now (and the ones from a decade ago?)
On the bright side, what I've noticed on Apple's marketing is that they keep slipping in references to "video podcasts"-- which at the moment barely exist. This could mean iTunes could branch into a new distribution channel for indie programs, like how Netflix is having some success as the sole distributor of certain movies.) It could be both the "bush leagues" for aspiring shows, or the place where shows with a fan base but who can't get the numbers to stay on the air (like Futurama or Freaks and Geeks) could end up.
If you paid $20 for content on UMD so you could watch it on a tiny little screen, you deserve to be shot. Spending $20+ on a full sized DVD that you can watch on your widescreen television once or twice in your life is absurd enough, much less this PSP UMD nonsense. But it just proves, people will buy anything!
Damn straight. You could buy 5 or 6 ringtones for that $20.
I think the *biggest thing* is the fact you can now download TV shows, like Lost, for $1.99 an episode. I think that's pretty earth shattering...a 3 minute pop video, or a 45 minute TV show for the same price?
You can't measure that way. If you like the 3-minute song, you could potentially play it thousands of times. But you probably won't watch that episode of "Lost" more than once, maybe a few more times if you're a fanboy.
I also would not get so attached to the price for TV downloads. The waters are being tested to see what the market will bear. If downloading proves to be a popular means of getting TV content, that's going to compete with broadcast TV... And the backbone of TV is advertising. They're going to have to come up with new methods of embedding ads, or charge more per download.
Gee no parent ever gets there children credit cards in america. Age verification via credit card is not even close to fool proof.
Really though, it might as well be consent. If a parent gives a teen a credit card the kid has either proven themself to be extremely trustworthy, or the parent's so rich or out of it he doesn't give a fuck what little Dylan/Dakota/Paris does. A 16-year old with a credit card can get in a lot more trouble than buying an M-rated game with 3-D models of boobs.
I don't think the hotel example makes a good case for the technology. We have laptops because they're portable and convenient, not just to be able to go between set workstations. You can't take a USB stick on a plane, to a cafe, etc.
Not to mention, I would never touch a hotel room computer keyboard that God knows how many lonely travellers have done God knows what to before I got there...
But what if you applied the same principal to your own computers? Say a powerful desktop and ultra-portable laptop that both ran from the same swappable flash drive? Or a drive that you could take from work to home, so you can have the same experience on both systems? No more remote desktops and transferring files back and forth...