Of course it was a gimmick! The idea was and is, if you were old enough to know that the food was awful and the games were old, you're past the target market. Little kids don't care that the pizza is bad, they don't care that the games are old, they care that they're playing games with all the other kids at the birthday party.
I don't know how well this idea will work out, but I've always been a Nolan Bushnell fan so if they ever hit the midwest I'll try one.
A killer app that will allow Microsoft to sell systems like Atari or VMLabs. I don't know if they'll be able to do it without a launch title like Merlin Racing, though.
Except that by 1999 Angelfire was already including banner ads atop my horrible web page, and presumably making money off of it.
Also, 20 million people may listen to podcasts, but they aren't doing it entirely because they love amateur recording, writing, and speaking quality. They're doing it because it's convenient, and can be listened to on their schedule, not Wolfman Jack's.
A radio PLAYING podcasts takes away that major advantage. I like some of them, but I'm not going to tune in at a certain time and sit through advertisements to listen.
I think if they do make money it'll have to be in the same way that vanity publishers do: charge the artist.
But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?
It's not harming you, you're not entitled to their work. That's like saying Bill Gates is harming you by not letting you crash at his mansion(s). When George Lucas owning the rights to Star Wars shivs your parents, let me know and we'll work this out.
Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.
I'd argue that a better lightbulb is an innovation, too. Then you sell it, and the original lightbulb owner has to justify purchasing his product or fall under. He can make it cheaper--helping the consumer--or he can make it better--also helping the consumer. Remember, patents are granted for refinements of inventions, too.
But that merely rewards people for spending time. If I spent a lot of time inventing the wheel, should I get to own the idea and charge you for driving to work? In fact, why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)
By ideas I meant the typical intellectual properties; books, movies, music, etc.
And where does this leave George Lucas? That's what you're not remembering, it's HIS stuff. I'm sure someone could use my computer better than me, but I'm not going to give it to them because of it.
Oh, come on, just because they don't go to Slashdot doesn't mean the big bad capitalists have their wallets in their pig-dog hands, or whatever it is you're implying here.
I'm glad you've determined that anyone who voted for "our yokel prez" is a putz who isn't enlightened like you, I'll be sure to become more gullible so your deep observation fits.
And I'm glad you don't find it ironic that you're telling people to get up off their butts and outside from... Slashdot.
What!? Why should George Lucas's property be in the public domain, because you want even more horrible books about it? I don't believe that holds up in most courts.
This has to be a parody post, right? Where's the Yakov Smirnov tie-in at the end?
Of course they need the support of the masses, they foot the bill!
More than anything else Nasa needs the public to be excited by space like they were in the 60's. If it takes Scott Bakula to do that, then so be it. Obviously I'd prefer the public to fall in love with the actual astronauts again, but that's not going to work when they're this deep into a rut. If they can build some excitement with b-list celebrities and--more importantly--high-profile missions, then they can use astronauts to publicize themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
What, Funkytown?
First you bring up the dog-eating MMORPG publishing market and then you exclude Korean games?
Of course it was a gimmick! The idea was and is, if you were old enough to know that the food was awful and the games were old, you're past the target market. Little kids don't care that the pizza is bad, they don't care that the games are old, they care that they're playing games with all the other kids at the birthday party.
I don't know how well this idea will work out, but I've always been a Nolan Bushnell fan so if they ever hit the midwest I'll try one.
Yeah, we're pretty much all like that.
Seriously, did somebody with a fish magnet on their car kill your dog or something?
A killer app that will allow Microsoft to sell systems like Atari or VMLabs. I don't know if they'll be able to do it without a launch title like Merlin Racing, though.
S/2005 S1, as you know, was the Roman god of awkward names.
I think you need to slice it out a little...
It's a little known fact, but Nester's Funky Bowling was actually a covert urban warfare simulator made by the CIA.
There were, well, technical difficulties.
"Van Wilder? This is your cousin Marvin. You know that new party you've been looking for? Well, listen to this!"
Except that by 1999 Angelfire was already including banner ads atop my horrible web page, and presumably making money off of it.
Also, 20 million people may listen to podcasts, but they aren't doing it entirely because they love amateur recording, writing, and speaking quality. They're doing it because it's convenient, and can be listened to on their schedule, not Wolfman Jack's.
A radio PLAYING podcasts takes away that major advantage. I like some of them, but I'm not going to tune in at a certain time and sit through advertisements to listen.
I think if they do make money it'll have to be in the same way that vanity publishers do: charge the artist.
Shhhhhh! This is supposed to be about big bad America!
Wait, socialist Europe is a bastion of individual freedoms? When did this happen?
But it doesn't profit me for creators to benefit from their works. In fact, that benefit probably derives from me, so in fact it's harmful. How can you justify harming me so?
It's not harming you, you're not entitled to their work. That's like saying Bill Gates is harming you by not letting you crash at his mansion(s). When George Lucas owning the rights to Star Wars shivs your parents, let me know and we'll work this out.
Innovation is good, but refinement and commoditizing are also good. It's great to invent the first light bulb, but light bulbs are better when they last longer, are very inexpensive, are very cheap, and can be had anywhere or made by anyone. Innovation alone isn't enough, and so we must avoid encouraging it at the expense of all else.
I'd argue that a better lightbulb is an innovation, too. Then you sell it, and the original lightbulb owner has to justify purchasing his product or fall under. He can make it cheaper--helping the consumer--or he can make it better--also helping the consumer. Remember, patents are granted for refinements of inventions, too.
But that merely rewards people for spending time. If I spent a lot of time inventing the wheel, should I get to own the idea and charge you for driving to work? In fact, why should we allow people to own an idea at all? Can you name an example of when we have done so? (n.b. inventions are not ideas; they're more refined and are much rarer)
By ideas I meant the typical intellectual properties; books, movies, music, etc.
I love watching China shoot the wings off of its much-prophesied ascendency to world superpower, one authoritarian move at a time.
Remember, CHINA: "It worked for the soviets, right?"
Laws that allow creators to benefit from their works.
Laws that mean companies must innovate to succeed.
Laws that allow people to own ideas that are the result of their time.
Laws that incite people to go over the top at Drudge-esque lengths by claiming that somebody's going to copyright your DNA.
Okay, well, I like the first three things.
And where does this leave George Lucas? That's what you're not remembering, it's HIS stuff. I'm sure someone could use my computer better than me, but I'm not going to give it to them because of it.
Oh, come on, just because they don't go to Slashdot doesn't mean the big bad capitalists have their wallets in their pig-dog hands, or whatever it is you're implying here.
I'm glad you've determined that anyone who voted for "our yokel prez" is a putz who isn't enlightened like you, I'll be sure to become more gullible so your deep observation fits.
And I'm glad you don't find it ironic that you're telling people to get up off their butts and outside from... Slashdot.
What!? Why should George Lucas's property be in the public domain, because you want even more horrible books about it? I don't believe that holds up in most courts.
This has to be a parody post, right? Where's the Yakov Smirnov tie-in at the end?
Of course they need the support of the masses, they foot the bill!
More than anything else Nasa needs the public to be excited by space like they were in the 60's. If it takes Scott Bakula to do that, then so be it. Obviously I'd prefer the public to fall in love with the actual astronauts again, but that's not going to work when they're this deep into a rut. If they can build some excitement with b-list celebrities and--more importantly--high-profile missions, then they can use astronauts to publicize themselves.