I know I only have anecdotal evidence on this one, but I don't think retailers take a huge chunk of it. About 8 years ago I worked at CompUSA (it was my first job). The employees got their purchases at cost which we could look up. While I got a nice discount on some hardware, I was disappointed to see that cost for most $50 games was about $47. In fact, when the store would put new games on sale in their weekly flier for $45, most of the employees jumped on the sale as well as the store was selling at a loss to draw more customers through the door.
Now that was a long time ago, but I doubt that the retailers have managed to somehow carve a bigger chunk out of the price for themselves.
It's easy to get sucked in by these trolls; they're professionals.
Could be why he's upset and posting. He's disgruntled that "Time Spent Trolling/." is about to appear on the expense sheet released by the RIAA. I think that would really make my day.
I hate linking to an example at an online store, but here's one: Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 SP2b w/Upgrade Coupon for Vista - OEM [newegg.com]
I hate linking to stores too, but here's the Retail version from newegg. And if it turns out I can't get the upgrade, I'll be miffed:P I'll find out in a day or two if it's valid. Wish me luck;)
I think it's important to note the possible drawbacks of this option (OEM XP + free Vista upgrade).
Actually, there's a retail version of XP + free Vista upgrade. Or at least, a number of vendors are selling it that way. I haven't actually tried to use my coupon yet, so I can't say for certain if it will work, but if it doesn't, I'll have words for the vendor.
Also, I followed your MS link but found no mention of requiring an OEM version or not allowing a retail version ("qualifying PC running Windows XP" no mention of pre-installation, etc). Can you link me to the section that mentions that?
Since MS has made the decision not to support DX10 in XP, I doubt that any games will require DX10 for about 2 years or so. Until then, the games developers would probably be limiting their target audience too much until the majority of their target audience has gone through a computer upgrade cycle.
True, but the gaming enthusiast in me hopes that while some games might not/require/ it, some might have some additional support for it. Similarly, some games have additional features if you have a PhysX card but still don't require it, I'm hoping that some games tack on the bells and whistles that DX10 supposedly has for early adopters:P
You know, I'm not a Linux expert (I wish I was). I've installed Ubuntu 6.10 as my third alternative as well;) That said, I'll tell you what "I think I know" and if some actual Linux guru wants to jump in and get you up to speed, I welcome it (since I'd like to learn a bit more myself).
Directx is closed-source software developed for computer games on MS products. That said, I'd doubt that MS will develop a Linux version. There is some software (like Wine) that attempt a compatibility layer to run Windows programs. Wine has some compatibility with DX9 but as far as I can tell, it's not 100%.
I hope to get my games running in Linux, but I have a lot to learn myself on the issue, hopefully someone might be able to fill in a bit more for you;)
No... I think there's some confusing language in the introduction of that article. Vista will support OpenGL ICD's and nVidia and ATI are already working on these. Apparently there was some question about the issue at first, but this is now old news from almost a year ago. I think what the article meant was that currently nVidia and ATI do not have the vista drivers for it. Correct me if I'm off base on this one, but that's how I read it.
I've been poking around for a while trying to ask the same questions. There's a fairly good write up at Tom's Hardware on performance differences. Tom's hardware is typically pretty even handed in their benchmark reviews (IMHO), they'll often use a demo or script for a video game and run it a few times to get a solid number.
As you can see, the difference is small but present (favoring XP for games) with the notable standout of Unreal Tournament 2004, however as the reviewer notes, this has a lot to do with the current driver support.
As far as I can tell, I think in the long run when games start making use of DX10 and such, we'll see some nice results, but in the short run games will be better run in XP.
If you need a Windows OS (and I just built a gaming computer myself, so I'm in a similar boat) some stores will sell XP with a free Vista upgrade. That's what I purchased, that way I can use XP for a few months (while Vista figures out what it's doing) and upgrade when I'm good and ready. I'd list where I purchased from, but I'd hate to have my post be construed as advertising, suffice is to say you should be able to find some offers via google.
I would have thought unreasonable searches and seizures by private organisations would be called breaking and entering and/or burglary and/or outright theft. Since when do corporates have any rights to trespass and steal? And why do you think it's okay if they do?
Wow, I'm not quite sure how I gave you that impression, but let me try and clarify. I started by including the line that the 4th amendment applies only to the government and not private organizations as (as I mentioned) IANAL and the exact legal mechanism by which Fox obtains information from YouTube isn't something I keenly understand. Breaking and entering might be one way to characterize behavior, but what about a case where Fox requested the names of all registered YouTube users? That might have serious privacy implications, however the fourth amendment wouldn't apply (at least, as I read it).
Next, I don't believe I ever stated that corporations have any rights to trespass and steal, but note also that trespassing and stealing are not covered by the fourth amendment.
Finally, I no where even remotely stated that I thought trespassing and stealing was okay. Stating it the way you did makes most of your post sound like flamebait.
Again, I was simply curious how the parent saw this as a 4th amendment issue. He might be seeing this in a different light than I am or know more about the law.
Sorry, I read your comment but I'm not quite sure I'm following. I popped open the Wikipedia entry on the subject and it noted that "it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations" but only those from the government.
Further, IANAL, but doesn't the search seem specific (we want the information for this _one_ fellow here) and contain probable cause (his name uploaded copyrighted material)?
Sorry, I'm interested in the issue, but I'm not quite sure I see how this ties in to the 4th amendment, would you mind clarifying what you meant?
Giving a private corporation special powers by the way of law is nothing new under the
sun and a continuing trend as privatized law enforcement and private prison corporations
etc. come to mind. I see nothing unique about that kind of entity.
And how many of those private corporations were a part of the government for decades beforehand? Look, I'm not quite sure if you're willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious differences between the fed and other private corporations or what, but I'd challenge you to name me one of those private corporations, I'll quickly point out just how greatly it differs from the fed for you.
But how about we cut away from the wiki article, let's go check the Fed:
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.(Emphasis mine)
and again in the same FAQ
The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Back to you... Without question, people to be trusted to do whatever in their power towards your best interests.
Just to fill you in a little more, the board acts based on the members. Most of the voting federal reserve banks actually support a team of research economists. For example the Chicago Fed hires a number of economists who regularly turn out publications. These economists make an informed decision based on their opinion of what is best for the long term economic growth of the country. These interests do/NOT/ necessarily fall in line with what the stockholders would like to see happen.
Believe it or not, this is a well documented system that is frequently audited and questioned by congress. This system is/not/ out to further the interests of the stock holders, member banks, or the US politicians.
This really isn't tin-foil hat time, you can read the minutes of the meeting. Part of the power of the USD is the ability to attract foreign investment. So really, you don't even have to trust me or trust the Fed, but if you trust greedy corporations to be greedy, then consider how they are reluctant to invest in countries which have poor monetary policy compared to the willingness to invest in the US. The stark contrast will illustrate that this system isn't just a "have faith in it" scheme, it's a system that greedy corporations have enough belief in to dump billions of dollars.
What's more, the dollar is given out by a _private corporation_: "The Federal Reserve".
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "given out", if you walk into the federal reserve, they certainly aren't handing out currency. However, I take issue with naming them a "private corporation". From the wikipedia article: "The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee;...." and from the related article on the FOMC: "the Federal Reserve System, is charged under U.S. law with overseeing open market operations in the United States, and is the principal tool of US national monetary policy".
A quasi government operation with presidentially appointed members and charged by U.S. law is/not/ something I would go around portraying as a "private corporation". The fed is rather a very unique and different beast. The chief reason why the Fed is/not/ strictly a part of the government has more to do with the long running problems where politicians and governments tampered with monetary policy and created large monetary economic problems. In 1951 independence was granted to the Fed for similar reasons and the Fed has remained independent for these same reasons. A politically independent entity is important to the integrity of a currency for both domestic and foreign investors. Great, so we're on the same page, the fed isn't really a private corporation... it's a unique entity.
Now, is the Linden a Fait currency? I'll agree that the USD and the Linden are the same when it comes to conceptually gasping currency, but they differ widely in terms of backers/and/ credibility. The US Government isn't just a bunch of thugs (as you called them) backing their currency, they are also a credible backer so far as they attempt to stabilize the value of their currency. It is this stability (due to monetary policy, the rather permanent nature of the US Government, etc) that makes it important to others.
So while the Linden may fit the criteria of a fixed exchange rate currency, I would not compare it to the USD. The Linden does not have an independent central bank (as the US and most western countries do), does not have a transparent or credible means (at least that I can find) of backing their currency.
I think the more interesting question is what if there was a classic "bank run" in Second Life? Could Linden pay up? The US banks are FDIC insured.
As blizzard has made incredibly clear, all characters, items, and gold, belong to them, and anyone buying/selling gold/characters/items is breaking the policy.
In reality, I think that all MMOs/need/ to make the same claims as blizzard and fight to protect them. Once the IRS starts to tax virtual assets, what's next? If I get someone killed in game can I now be sued for financial hardship? IANAL, but it seems like I would have effectively cost them some of their personal assets. How about Eve and all of the financial scandals we've had stories about. If the in game currency is recognized as having "real world" value, are all of those folks going to court? In short, I think it would destroy most MMOs.
I know that a lot of these comments are pointing out that the program took over mindless grinding, but it actually did a lot more than that. It also stated a whole free rider problem for groups.
Take PvP as an example. A lot of dynamic content, not a great bot location right? Wrong. Since you accumulate some rewards/just for participating/ in PvP (wins/losses aside), PvP teams started filling up with people botting to get a free ride. See, when your bot just runs you at a wall for 10 minutes, at the end of it, you'll still end up with a reward. On the other hand, your team just went from 15v15 to 15v14 since you're running at a wall. Pretty soon, there's 3-4 bots on each side doing nothing, and games are won/lost by what your player to bot ratio is at.
I just thought I'd toss that out there, this bot wasn't just removing some minor grind here or there, it was ruining a major part of the end game for a lot of folks.
If the legality of that law is still in question?
I'm an Illinois Resident (also 25) and I was carded for a video game purchase 2 weeks ago. "Ah, store policy, sounds good" I mumbled as I reached for my ID Card. "Oh no, it's Illinois Law" was the snippy reply. I then got into a huge argument about how I do understand that they are a concerned parent but... etc etc etc.
Was this sales clerk just horribly misinformed?
Alright, maybe in the version of tetris that you played, they used that song, but it is neither the "traditional" tetris song, nor is it the one that the A Capella group performs. To make this clear and avoid argument, I have links below to amazon.com's page selling these CDs, you can then click on the "preview track" button and listen to the 30 second audio clip of each song.
It's at least performed by The Immortals and the name of the song is "Techno Syndrome". I have no idea if it was written by them or if they are from the US/Japan/other country. Someone else might know.
I'll try looking it up at home, but I don't think that's it. "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" is from The Nutcracker, this song is a an actual piece of folk music IIRC.
-Diomedes
It may be worth noting...
on
Nintendo A Capella
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That while they claimed they were performing original Japanese music, the Tetris theme is based on a Russian Folk song (although I can't recall the name).
-Diomedes
Slashdot Mirror
The retailers take a huge chunk of it.
I know I only have anecdotal evidence on this one, but I don't think retailers take a huge chunk of it. About 8 years ago I worked at CompUSA (it was my first job). The employees got their purchases at cost which we could look up. While I got a nice discount on some hardware, I was disappointed to see that cost for most $50 games was about $47. In fact, when the store would put new games on sale in their weekly flier for $45, most of the employees jumped on the sale as well as the store was selling at a loss to draw more customers through the door.
Now that was a long time ago, but I doubt that the retailers have managed to somehow carve a bigger chunk out of the price for themselves.
It's easy to get sucked in by these trolls; they're professionals.
/." is about to appear on the expense sheet released by the RIAA. I think that would really make my day.
Could be why he's upset and posting. He's disgruntled that "Time Spent Trolling
Since I already can't get to the site...there's a mirror dot here.
I hate linking to an example at an online store, but here's one: Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 SP2b w/Upgrade Coupon for Vista - OEM [newegg.com]
:P I'll find out in a day or two if it's valid. Wish me luck ;)
I hate linking to stores too, but here's the Retail version from newegg. And if it turns out I can't get the upgrade, I'll be miffed
I think it's important to note the possible drawbacks of this option (OEM XP + free Vista upgrade).
Actually, there's a retail version of XP + free Vista upgrade. Or at least, a number of vendors are selling it that way. I haven't actually tried to use my coupon yet, so I can't say for certain if it will work, but if it doesn't, I'll have words for the vendor.
Also, I followed your MS link but found no mention of requiring an OEM version or not allowing a retail version ("qualifying PC running Windows XP" no mention of pre-installation, etc). Can you link me to the section that mentions that?
Since MS has made the decision not to support DX10 in XP, I doubt that any games will require DX10 for about 2 years or so. Until then, the games developers would probably be limiting their target audience too much until the majority of their target audience has gone through a computer upgrade cycle.
/require/ it, some might have some additional support for it. Similarly, some games have additional features if you have a PhysX card but still don't require it, I'm hoping that some games tack on the bells and whistles that DX10 supposedly has for early adopters :P
True, but the gaming enthusiast in me hopes that while some games might not
You know, I'm not a Linux expert (I wish I was). I've installed Ubuntu 6.10 as my third alternative as well ;) That said, I'll tell you what "I think I know" and if some actual Linux guru wants to jump in and get you up to speed, I welcome it (since I'd like to learn a bit more myself).
;)
Directx is closed-source software developed for computer games on MS products. That said, I'd doubt that MS will develop a Linux version. There is some software (like Wine) that attempt a compatibility layer to run Windows programs. Wine has some compatibility with DX9 but as far as I can tell, it's not 100%.
I hope to get my games running in Linux, but I have a lot to learn myself on the issue, hopefully someone might be able to fill in a bit more for you
No... I think there's some confusing language in the introduction of that article. Vista will support OpenGL ICD's and nVidia and ATI are already working on these. Apparently there was some question about the issue at first, but this is now old news from almost a year ago. I think what the article meant was that currently nVidia and ATI do not have the vista drivers for it. Correct me if I'm off base on this one, but that's how I read it.
I've been poking around for a while trying to ask the same questions. There's a fairly good write up at Tom's Hardware on performance differences. Tom's hardware is typically pretty even handed in their benchmark reviews (IMHO), they'll often use a demo or script for a video game and run it a few times to get a solid number.
As you can see, the difference is small but present (favoring XP for games) with the notable standout of Unreal Tournament 2004, however as the reviewer notes, this has a lot to do with the current driver support.
As far as I can tell, I think in the long run when games start making use of DX10 and such, we'll see some nice results, but in the short run games will be better run in XP.
If you need a Windows OS (and I just built a gaming computer myself, so I'm in a similar boat) some stores will sell XP with a free Vista upgrade. That's what I purchased, that way I can use XP for a few months (while Vista figures out what it's doing) and upgrade when I'm good and ready. I'd list where I purchased from, but I'd hate to have my post be construed as advertising, suffice is to say you should be able to find some offers via google.
Hope that helps.
I would have thought unreasonable searches and seizures by private organisations would be called breaking and entering and/or burglary and/or outright theft. Since when do corporates have any rights to trespass and steal? And why do you think it's okay if they do?
Wow, I'm not quite sure how I gave you that impression, but let me try and clarify. I started by including the line that the 4th amendment applies only to the government and not private organizations as (as I mentioned) IANAL and the exact legal mechanism by which Fox obtains information from YouTube isn't something I keenly understand. Breaking and entering might be one way to characterize behavior, but what about a case where Fox requested the names of all registered YouTube users? That might have serious privacy implications, however the fourth amendment wouldn't apply (at least, as I read it).
Next, I don't believe I ever stated that corporations have any rights to trespass and steal, but note also that trespassing and stealing are not covered by the fourth amendment.
Finally, I no where even remotely stated that I thought trespassing and stealing was okay. Stating it the way you did makes most of your post sound like flamebait.
Again, I was simply curious how the parent saw this as a 4th amendment issue. He might be seeing this in a different light than I am or know more about the law.
Sorry, I read your comment but I'm not quite sure I'm following. I popped open the Wikipedia entry on the subject and it noted that "it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations" but only those from the government.
Further, IANAL, but doesn't the search seem specific (we want the information for this _one_ fellow here) and contain probable cause (his name uploaded copyrighted material)?
Sorry, I'm interested in the issue, but I'm not quite sure I see how this ties in to the 4th amendment, would you mind clarifying what you meant?
Giving a private corporation special powers by the way of law is nothing new under the sun and a continuing trend as privatized law enforcement and private prison corporations etc. come to mind. I see nothing unique about that kind of entity.
/NOT/ necessarily fall in line with what the stockholders would like to see happen.
/not/ out to further the interests of the stock holders, member banks, or the US politicians.
And how many of those private corporations were a part of the government for decades beforehand? Look, I'm not quite sure if you're willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious differences between the fed and other private corporations or what, but I'd challenge you to name me one of those private corporations, I'll quickly point out just how greatly it differs from the fed for you.
But how about we cut away from the wiki article, let's go check the Fed:
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.(Emphasis mine)
and again in the same FAQ
The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Back to you...
Without question, people to be trusted to do whatever in their power towards your best interests.
Just to fill you in a little more, the board acts based on the members. Most of the voting federal reserve banks actually support a team of research economists. For example the Chicago Fed hires a number of economists who regularly turn out publications. These economists make an informed decision based on their opinion of what is best for the long term economic growth of the country. These interests do
Believe it or not, this is a well documented system that is frequently audited and questioned by congress. This system is
This really isn't tin-foil hat time, you can read the minutes of the meeting. Part of the power of the USD is the ability to attract foreign investment. So really, you don't even have to trust me or trust the Fed, but if you trust greedy corporations to be greedy, then consider how they are reluctant to invest in countries which have poor monetary policy compared to the willingness to invest in the US. The stark contrast will illustrate that this system isn't just a "have faith in it" scheme, it's a system that greedy corporations have enough belief in to dump billions of dollars.
What's more, the dollar is given out by a _private corporation_: "The Federal Reserve".
...." and from the related article on the FOMC: "the Federal Reserve System, is charged under U.S. law with overseeing open market operations in the United States, and is the principal tool of US national monetary policy".
/not/ something I would go around portraying as a "private corporation". The fed is rather a very unique and different beast. The chief reason why the Fed is /not/ strictly a part of the government has more to do with the long running problems where politicians and governments tampered with monetary policy and created large monetary economic problems. In 1951 independence was granted to the Fed for similar reasons and the Fed has remained independent for these same reasons. A politically independent entity is important to the integrity of a currency for both domestic and foreign investors. Great, so we're on the same page, the fed isn't really a private corporation... it's a unique entity.
/and/ credibility. The US Government isn't just a bunch of thugs (as you called them) backing their currency, they are also a credible backer so far as they attempt to stabilize the value of their currency. It is this stability (due to monetary policy, the rather permanent nature of the US Government, etc) that makes it important to others.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "given out", if you walk into the federal reserve, they certainly aren't handing out currency. However, I take issue with naming them a "private corporation". From the wikipedia article: "The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee;
A quasi government operation with presidentially appointed members and charged by U.S. law is
Now, is the Linden a Fait currency? I'll agree that the USD and the Linden are the same when it comes to conceptually gasping currency, but they differ widely in terms of backers
So while the Linden may fit the criteria of a fixed exchange rate currency, I would not compare it to the USD. The Linden does not have an independent central bank (as the US and most western countries do), does not have a transparent or credible means (at least that I can find) of backing their currency.
I think the more interesting question is what if there was a classic "bank run" in Second Life? Could Linden pay up? The US banks are FDIC insured.
As blizzard has made incredibly clear, all characters, items, and gold, belong to them, and anyone buying/selling gold/characters/items is breaking the policy.
/need/ to make the same claims as blizzard and fight to protect them. Once the IRS starts to tax virtual assets, what's next? If I get someone killed in game can I now be sued for financial hardship? IANAL, but it seems like I would have effectively cost them some of their personal assets. How about Eve and all of the financial scandals we've had stories about. If the in game currency is recognized as having "real world" value, are all of those folks going to court? In short, I think it would destroy most MMOs.
In reality, I think that all MMOs
I know that a lot of these comments are pointing out that the program took over mindless grinding, but it actually did a lot more than that. It also stated a whole free rider problem for groups.
/just for participating/ in PvP (wins/losses aside), PvP teams started filling up with people botting to get a free ride. See, when your bot just runs you at a wall for 10 minutes, at the end of it, you'll still end up with a reward. On the other hand, your team just went from 15v15 to 15v14 since you're running at a wall. Pretty soon, there's 3-4 bots on each side doing nothing, and games are won/lost by what your player to bot ratio is at.
Take PvP as an example. A lot of dynamic content, not a great bot location right? Wrong. Since you accumulate some rewards
I just thought I'd toss that out there, this bot wasn't just removing some minor grind here or there, it was ruining a major part of the end game for a lot of folks.
If the legality of that law is still in question? I'm an Illinois Resident (also 25) and I was carded for a video game purchase 2 weeks ago. "Ah, store policy, sounds good" I mumbled as I reached for my ID Card. "Oh no, it's Illinois Law" was the snippy reply. I then got into a huge argument about how I do understand that they are a concerned parent but ... etc etc etc.
Was this sales clerk just horribly misinformed?
Let her know how you feel demuzio@senatedem.state.il.us I know I am.
-Diomedes
Nevermind, I'm an idiot. You were agreeing with me, weren't you. Terribly sorry.
-Diomedes
Alright, maybe in the version of tetris that you played, they used that song, but it is neither the "traditional" tetris song, nor is it the one that the A Capella group performs. To make this clear and avoid argument, I have links below to amazon.com's page selling these CDs, you can then click on the "preview track" button and listen to the 30 second audio clip of each song.
Tchaikovsky: The Nutcracker
Here's the Ozma cover of Korobeiniki
Take what you will from this, but the correct answer is clear to me.
-Diomedes
It's at least performed by The Immortals and the name of the song is "Techno Syndrome". I have no idea if it was written by them or if they are from the US/Japan/other country. Someone else might know.
-Diomedes
Yep, that's the one. Thanks.
-Diomedes
I'll try looking it up at home, but I don't think that's it. "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" is from The Nutcracker, this song is a an actual piece of folk music IIRC.
-Diomedes
That while they claimed they were performing original Japanese music, the Tetris theme is based on a Russian Folk song (although I can't recall the name). -Diomedes