Because they didn't focus on propper data compression and procedural rendering. It's funny but if you do some research, the average data footprint of games begins by skyrocketing to blast through any current data storage medium (CD to DVD) and then actually starts to taper off. Given that much space, most companies will waste a large chunk of that space by using it as a reservoire for non-streamlined materials and large chunky textures.
As game engines and other technologies improve, this may change. However, before that time, most games will come out on DVD. Blu-Ray wont be the standard until later.
In Sony's on conference, their rep said for the first year only 20% of the games that came out for the PS2 were on DVD. Then 5 years later that number was up in the mid 90%. Granted that's impressive, however, it appears that the next-gen cycle is now shorter than 5 years. The xbox was not out for 5 years, and I anticipate that the companies will be launching into their next-next-gen console pre-production around 4 years from now, with a release one more year after that.
That being said, if Blu-Ray is not the de facto standard for next-gen data storage by this point, Sony will lose a large chunk of change, even at $499 and $599.
Considering that at least 5 out of the 10 announced launch titles are games coming out for the 360, there's not much new here. All the online features are straight out of XBOX live. The controller is Wii ripoff. Dev's have already said, that there will be a LOT of overlap in games between PS3 and the 360, since exclusive titles don't make much economic sense when games have similar capabilities. Some very highly respected devs have said that the capabilities of the PS3 is not SO much higher than that of the 360, that it would require them to create a better version for that system, rather than just making ports for each system.
All the EA games will look the same, Band of Brothers trailer looks the same. Sonic looks the same. Stranglehold looks the same. See the trend?
Do I think the PS3 is more powerful than the 360? Yes, but I'm not sure if the margin of capabilities is worth $500 for the smaller of the two, and $600 for the larger one. This is especially true since I'm certain that the 360 premium bundle will drop $100 down to $299. Also those prices don't include accessories. And currently devs are making games on DVDs and don't need the larger capability. Not even the 360 games come even close to maxing out their DVDs. Furthermore, most game devs have reported that they are targetting their games for both systems at 720p, so the 1080p advantage is really not all that substantial.
Free energy would mean the sudden end of the oil, gas, and coal industries, and all of the companies that service those energies. That's hundreds billions of dollars that are suddenly sucked out of the global market. These people are making very very sure that they stay somewhat cozy enough with other businesses (like the automotive industry, etc.) that they can indirectly or even directly influence politicians.
Heck even the government itself would lose out quite a bit of money from taxes (yes the energy sector does pay taxes, even if not quite enough compared to their windfall profits). Aside from the government, the energy companies are basically the only people have the resources to make "free energy" (I assume you mean room temperature, table-top fusion) a reality.
Not to mention that a limitless energy source would all the sudden mean that a large number of people that didn't develop into energy sufficiency were just pushed into mordernity. The closest analogy would be an NBA player that skipped college and then everyone wonders why they can't handle their money. Do honestly think that some of these countries would simply give up their biases and 1000-year old feuds and civil wars, just because of "free energy"? Of course not. The only thing that would happen would be that it would become infinitely cheaper for them to conduct their wars.
Personally, I'd love to see fusion, because it'll solve more problems in the end, but to the powers that be, it's a huge nightmare.
Someone stop this man. The bridge to nowhere apparently keeps leading to the stupid &#$@* Broadcast Flag. DO NOT WANT...!!!!
(Contact your Reps and Senators)
Ok one thing we need to makes sure we all understand is that we have three branches of government in the US. No these are not George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. They are the Executive branch, Legislative branch, and the Judiciary. Officially these three branches (plus the Media as the virtual fourth branch, according to the framers) are supposed to serve as a system of checks and balances for each other.
With that out of the way, a lot of Americans are currently beginning to realize that to the Bush administration seperation of powers means isolation of powers.
This is especially so with the war on terror, where the executive branch oversees every step of the process. It starts with the president and his advisors that set the policy as to what the indicia for terrorists and enemy combatants are supposed to be (executive branch). Then the intelligence agencies get involved to do the investigation (executive branch). The information is reviewed by the NSA (executive branch). The information is then reported back to the president, his advisors, or a military tribunal (executive branch). The trial is conducted by the tribunal (executive branch) and the punishment is doled out by the military prison, with civilian interrogation by the CIA or other equivalent group (also executive branch). See a trend?
I just don't like the judge, jury and executioner having access to all that information, so that they may try to squeeze someone if they don't like their stance on policy (and yes this has happened to people, such as social networking and community groups, even senior citizen societies).
Anyway.. just sayin... National IDs give me the heebeejeebees
Many anthropologists, socioligist, and biologists agree that humans have essentially stopped their own evolution, or at least slowed it to a crawl. Evolution is the long-term response of continuously having to adapt to your environment. However, because of civilization, the large majority of humanity simply adapts its environment around them instead.
That being said, wouldn't it make more sense to look at our evolutionary development and compare it with the rest of the animal kingdom. In this way, scientists might identify actual possible improvements which would simply be considered the evolution of homo sapiens (I shudder to think what would happen if I include the word homo in a sentence on Slashdot). For instance, if our legs bent inwards (backwards) at the knee, like say a stork's legs, we could run faster, jump higher, and sit down more easily.
The meddling in this article, and that is all it is, would in the end create not an alternate human but an altogether different and completely unrelated species.
I mean, the quality of video games has decreased steadily. Amidst all the crazy video laser light shows that grace our monitors, gameplay has become a sad thing of legend, that comes out now and again like BigFoot, or intelligence in politics....
Didn't Lucent just get merged/sucked up by another company (Alcatel?)
In any case, generally speaking, RIM lawsuit aside, it is highly unusual for cases like this actually to go to trial. But even if Lucent were to win, isn't MPEG2 a software thing? Asking for a recall seems frivolous considering you can just do as software...um...downgrade(?)
In any case, where was Lucent's patent on MPEG2 when all this technology became popular in all kinds of other goodies? This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Micro$oft has roughly 40 billion Dollars in actual Cash, could it? If you don't enforce your patents and wait for a big fish you risk losing your ability to enforce the patent for lack of policing, also there may be laches defense for failure to file the lawsuit sooner, though that seems less likely as final specs weren't out so long ago that Lucent would have had reasonable timeframe to do any due diligence. Anyone know what the statute of limitations, or laches defense timeframe is on a patent claim?
*shrug*
Lucent to get some weird Vista perk in 3...2...1...
This was my point, I just didn't state it as well. So thanks ultranova
I just think if you teach kids proper behavior, the difference between right and wrong, and the difference between safe and unsafe, you will cause them to make the right decisions. They'll choose to stay out of trouble far more than if you put up technological big-brother type limitations, especially these measures are easily circumvented.
I'm not saying that anyone that does this is a horrible parent. But the general tendency in this country is over-reliance on technology or even the government to keep limit, censor, or in other ways curtail our children's exposure to the more seedy elements of life in our times.
While, I can understand the motivation, wouldn't it be more effective to teach a kid what the proper boundaries and modes of behavior are, rather than just throwing up a bunch of "Don't Step On The Grass" signs?
It's very similar to the violent video games cause violence in children argument. I have played just about every violent video game I could find. I enjoy it. But my parents raised me in a very reasoned way, and explained to me the issues underlying violent behavior. As such, I know that a game is just a game and that violence behavior is reprehensible in the real world. Violent video games does not cause violent behavior for people who understand the difference between right and wrong, and the difference between the real world and a virtual one.
These distinctions come as a result of proper parenting, so that the child understands why there are limitations and chooses not to cross those lines and do something horrible or expose themselves to some of the terrors that prey on our children today. If you still wish to use technology or the government to put up additional limits at that point, that's fine. I'm just saying that if you teach someone why they shouldn't step on the grass, they are far less likely to step on the grass to spite the otherwise seemingly arbitrary sign that is ordering them to stay off the grass.
Although, maybe I'm just a privacy-paranoid moron who believes that teaching our kids is better than limiting them.
Seriously though, whatever happened to teaching your kids how to act? You know, that whole parenting thing? It's not parenting if you let a corporation or some gizmo do it for you...
Yes. Dvorak, wrong again. Who would have thunk it. The guy has come to his pseudo-fame by making outlandish tech predictions for decades. He probably started out as a decent writer who couldn't set himself apart from the 94083094583094853098509834905 other tech writers out in the late 80s. Then he realized that if he started making counter-intuitive predictions that would take two sides of a polarized debate in technology and make them go into a flame war about it, people would read his stuff.
This is his job we're talking about. He's not some sort of tech-prophet. He's a writer. He sells words, regardless of their truth and even more so, regardless of his belief in their truth. The more people read his stuff, the more influence he gets, the more his predictions carry any weight, the more money he makes.
If 2 billion people read Dvorak and all disagreed, he wouldn't care. He'd still get paid. As it stands, since all he is doing is predicting, he can't be wrong in the traditional sense, because he can simply say "Just you wait. You'll see!" And there's nothing we can do about it....... Except stop paying attention.
The problem with most touchscreens is that the best material for a display panel is usually also quite reactive to the oils found on the skin of our fingertips. This leads to unsightly smudges and fingerprints on the screen. The way this could be avoided would be something along the lines in Minority Report. They would have to invent, for lack of better words, a cyber thimble.
That way, one could do the manipulation without touching the screen, but rather a few inches in front of the screen. That would also alleviate the problem of the "arm waving" that was mentioned in an earlier post. No-touch technology would allow the user to scale his motions by how close or how far they are from the screen. A motion further away would have a bigger impact, one that was closer would be more precise.
I wonder what the projected time for release to consumers would be...
Microsoft's business ideal was always take others' ideas and do them better. While I think there's nothing wrong with that, others may have disdain for a company that succeed to the extent that they can call the shots, and I understand and appreciate the concern.
I think Google is something else. Google is not selling a product. They are selling advertising. As such, it is not as much a monopoly because you can use other services. If the Google services are better, then the other companies need to get off their collective keister and do something about it. As has been stated in this thread, Google is very largely affected by the shareholders and the exposure that they gainf or the advertisers.
Not one sane marketing or PR person would stick with Google if some nefarious plot or conspiracy were the ultimate outcome, or even a likelihood. Look at Sony. People on this very site were decrying the benefits of the PS3 over the XBOX360. And while those people still badmouth the 360 for its stability issues, it is now Sony who is in hot water for horrendously vile business practices. Microsoft continues to win by milking the system. As soon as you step outside of the system, you lose me, and in many cases your advertisers. But since Microsoft is selling a product, and that product is THE product of choice, it can become an issue.
Google on the other hand, has one philosophy. Where there is a consumer, we will try to provide targeted and relevant advertising, and we will do so by providing a superior service. Who's affraid of Google? Everyone should be. Because when you are Google, why pick your battles if you can win every single one of them, not just for the advertisers (the clients), and the shareholders (the business interests), but also for the consumer. I have yet to see how Google is anything but a win-win situation. Granted Google's competition may have to worry, but this just means that someone has to step up and provide a better alternative. Again, in this case, the market, the advertisers, and the consumers win.
I don't see how any of this is a bad thing.
I may just have an oversimplified view of things though. Someone please correct any misconceptions I may have.
As many have pointed out in this thread, the problem is not with the video games but with the parenting. If there exists a violent video game under the sun, I have probably played it, and thoroughly enjoyed the gore in the process.
Still, I don't run around acting it out, because I was raised to understand the difference between reality and non-reality.
This is just like parents saying that Rock 'n Roll was going to turn us all into monsters; or certain books that were banned because of their inflammatory nature.
Parents in this country (or any other country (but this country especially)) need to grab their kids by the ears and let them know what's what, instead of blaming things like sex and/or violence in video-games and movies. It's almost like as though parents think they can just put parenting of their children on auto-pilot and rely on technology (various censoring and tracking gadgets) and the government (the FCC and whatever 1st Amendment-subversive bills "values"-driven politicans are trying to push through Congress these days).
It's almost as if parents today are affraid of getting their hands dirty or having to confront their kids in fear of "not being cool". You are a parent. You're job is NOT to be cool. Instead, you should be worrying about making sure that you raise a well-adjusted kid that doesn't think violence in video games is a green light to go postal on the world. It seemed to have worked for me.
Also, if you start censoring video games, you also have to censor movies and television. Why stop there? Books can be just as much of a hideaway from reality as anything else. For some people it's music that sets them off. For others it may be sports. Who here hasn't watched a Football game or a boxing match and thought to themselves, "Man, I wish I could flatten someone like that" and then thought of the specific person they wish they could flatten?
I'm just saying. The video games and the violence contained therein are not the problem. Instead, it's the fact that people in this country are no longer willing to take responsibilities for their actions, and more specifically their failures.
That starts with the top (politicians) right on down to the everyman, and it shouldn't take a video game to tell us that.
Let me be the first to say, that even if I could find 0SX free for my Intel box, I'd still pay for it. I've been clamoring for a way to run that system without buying a Mac ever since it came out.
But I agree, with frgough: Apple will probably lock it down to run on Apple-brand only.
It really is too bad. I would only need to boot into XP on the rare occasion that Wine isn't compatible with something in OSX...
Does anyone else think it's ironic that Mac is switching to Intel, while Microsoft's XBOX360 is running on a G5? What's next? Nintendo using old Sega Mastersystem hardware?
(see: "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette for examples of non-irony)
Again, I must ask why we care so much about this? Why do we care so much that any thread debating the qualities of any OS over another will undoubtedly get more comments than most other stories and will likely be guaranteed a greenlight over any number of more interesting submissions?
I wonder: If we cared as much about politics as we care about our (OS and other Tech/Sports/Car/Fashion/Television and other Media) rivalries, we might actually be able to show conclusively whether or not democracy works on a large scale!
Imagine that...
Oh well, instead I guess I'm going to get on my Windows PC, to google what the model girlfriend of my favorite football player was wearing in that car commercial on Access Hollywood last night
The only reason why I said OSX is kinda a third option is that under the hood, OSX is somewhat related to linux. (Before you jump down my throat, I'll tell you that I know there is a distinct difference between Linux and Mac's flavor of Unix).
But this article is more about Linux v. Windows, and both of those systems may be installed on the large amounts of PCs already owned by people, and wouldn't necessitate buying a whole new system.
That being said, Macs are looking more and more attractive and I'd get one if I had the income.
...or are Microsoft and Linux debates turning into epic yet somehow very stale regurgitations of old arguments (much red-state/blue-state squabbles)?
At this point, I wish there were a viable third option. I guess osX counts as a third option, but still... I just want something to break the monotony. Where is a OS/2 Warp upgrade when you need one?
Either way, I fear it has become impossible for/. to go a day without a Linux/Windows "discussion"
That is a good argument, but most courts agree that advertising is considered a use in commerce.
Do I think these things get out of hand? Yes Do I think Intellectual Propert rights in this country are being used to foster progress and creativity and to protect the consumer, as the framers of the Constitution intended? No
Slashdot Mirror
Because they didn't focus on propper data compression and procedural rendering. It's funny but if you do some research, the average data footprint of games begins by skyrocketing to blast through any current data storage medium (CD to DVD) and then actually starts to taper off. Given that much space, most companies will waste a large chunk of that space by using it as a reservoire for non-streamlined materials and large chunky textures.
As game engines and other technologies improve, this may change. However, before that time, most games will come out on DVD. Blu-Ray wont be the standard until later.
In Sony's on conference, their rep said for the first year only 20% of the games that came out for the PS2 were on DVD. Then 5 years later that number was up in the mid 90%. Granted that's impressive, however, it appears that the next-gen cycle is now shorter than 5 years. The xbox was not out for 5 years, and I anticipate that the companies will be launching into their next-next-gen console pre-production around 4 years from now, with a release one more year after that.
That being said, if Blu-Ray is not the de facto standard for next-gen data storage by this point, Sony will lose a large chunk of change, even at $499 and $599.
Considering that at least 5 out of the 10 announced launch titles are games coming out for the 360, there's not much new here. All the online features are straight out of XBOX live. The controller is Wii ripoff. Dev's have already said, that there will be a LOT of overlap in games between PS3 and the 360, since exclusive titles don't make much economic sense when games have similar capabilities. Some very highly respected devs have said that the capabilities of the PS3 is not SO much higher than that of the 360, that it would require them to create a better version for that system, rather than just making ports for each system.
All the EA games will look the same, Band of Brothers trailer looks the same. Sonic looks the same. Stranglehold looks the same. See the trend?
Do I think the PS3 is more powerful than the 360? Yes, but I'm not sure if the margin of capabilities is worth $500 for the smaller of the two, and $600 for the larger one. This is especially true since I'm certain that the 360 premium bundle will drop $100 down to $299. Also those prices don't include accessories. And currently devs are making games on DVDs and don't need the larger capability. Not even the 360 games come even close to maxing out their DVDs. Furthermore, most game devs have reported that they are targetting their games for both systems at 720p, so the 1080p advantage is really not all that substantial.
Greed.
Free energy would mean the sudden end of the oil, gas, and coal industries, and all of the companies that service those energies. That's hundreds billions of dollars that are suddenly sucked out of the global market. These people are making very very sure that they stay somewhat cozy enough with other businesses (like the automotive industry, etc.) that they can indirectly or even directly influence politicians.
Heck even the government itself would lose out quite a bit of money from taxes (yes the energy sector does pay taxes, even if not quite enough compared to their windfall profits). Aside from the government, the energy companies are basically the only people have the resources to make "free energy" (I assume you mean room temperature, table-top fusion) a reality.
Not to mention that a limitless energy source would all the sudden mean that a large number of people that didn't develop into energy sufficiency were just pushed into mordernity. The closest analogy would be an NBA player that skipped college and then everyone wonders why they can't handle their money. Do honestly think that some of these countries would simply give up their biases and 1000-year old feuds and civil wars, just because of "free energy"? Of course not. The only thing that would happen would be that it would become infinitely cheaper for them to conduct their wars.
Personally, I'd love to see fusion, because it'll solve more problems in the end, but to the powers that be, it's a huge nightmare.
For those of you who don't know what this is, please review: Broadcast Flag Article at Wikipedia
Someone stop this man. The bridge to nowhere apparently keeps leading to the stupid &#$@* Broadcast Flag. DO NOT WANT...!!!! (Contact your Reps and Senators)Ok one thing we need to makes sure we all understand is that we have three branches of government in the US. No these are not George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. They are the Executive branch, Legislative branch, and the Judiciary. Officially these three branches (plus the Media as the virtual fourth branch, according to the framers) are supposed to serve as a system of checks and balances for each other.
With that out of the way, a lot of Americans are currently beginning to realize that to the Bush administration seperation of powers means isolation of powers.
This is especially so with the war on terror, where the executive branch oversees every step of the process. It starts with the president and his advisors that set the policy as to what the indicia for terrorists and enemy combatants are supposed to be (executive branch). Then the intelligence agencies get involved to do the investigation (executive branch). The information is reviewed by the NSA (executive branch). The information is then reported back to the president, his advisors, or a military tribunal (executive branch). The trial is conducted by the tribunal (executive branch) and the punishment is doled out by the military prison, with civilian interrogation by the CIA or other equivalent group (also executive branch). See a trend?
I just don't like the judge, jury and executioner having access to all that information, so that they may try to squeeze someone if they don't like their stance on policy (and yes this has happened to people, such as social networking and community groups, even senior citizen societies).
Anyway.. just sayin...
National IDs give me the heebeejeebees
Many anthropologists, socioligist, and biologists agree that humans have essentially stopped their own evolution, or at least slowed it to a crawl. Evolution is the long-term response of continuously having to adapt to your environment. However, because of civilization, the large majority of humanity simply adapts its environment around them instead.
That being said, wouldn't it make more sense to look at our evolutionary development and compare it with the rest of the animal kingdom. In this way, scientists might identify actual possible improvements which would simply be considered the evolution of homo sapiens (I shudder to think what would happen if I include the word homo in a sentence on Slashdot). For instance, if our legs bent inwards (backwards) at the knee, like say a stork's legs, we could run faster, jump higher, and sit down more easily.
The meddling in this article, and that is all it is, would in the end create not an alternate human but an altogether different and completely unrelated species.
I mean, the quality of video games has decreased steadily. Amidst all the crazy video laser light shows that grace our monitors, gameplay has become a sad thing of legend, that comes out now and again like BigFoot, or intelligence in politics....
Schadenfreude is actually just the joy of other peoples' misfortunes.
/Just sayin //German (dual)citizen
Freude is joy.
Schaden is injury,loss, or misfortune.
(I am not a lawyer...yet)
Didn't Lucent just get merged/sucked up by another company (Alcatel?)
In any case, generally speaking, RIM lawsuit aside, it is highly unusual for cases like this actually to go to trial. But even if Lucent were to win, isn't MPEG2 a software thing? Asking for a recall seems frivolous considering you can just do as software...um...downgrade(?)
In any case, where was Lucent's patent on MPEG2 when all this technology became popular in all kinds of other goodies? This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Micro$oft has roughly 40 billion Dollars in actual Cash, could it? If you don't enforce your patents and wait for a big fish you risk losing your ability to enforce the patent for lack of policing, also there may be laches defense for failure to file the lawsuit sooner, though that seems less likely as final specs weren't out so long ago that Lucent would have had reasonable timeframe to do any due diligence. Anyone know what the statute of limitations, or laches defense timeframe is on a patent claim?
*shrug*
Lucent to get some weird Vista perk in 3...2...1...
This was my point, I just didn't state it as well. So thanks ultranova
I just think if you teach kids proper behavior, the difference between right and wrong, and the difference between safe and unsafe, you will cause them to make the right decisions. They'll choose to stay out of trouble far more than if you put up technological big-brother type limitations, especially these measures are easily circumvented.
I'm not saying that anyone that does this is a horrible parent. But the general tendency in this country is over-reliance on technology or even the government to keep limit, censor, or in other ways curtail our children's exposure to the more seedy elements of life in our times.
While, I can understand the motivation, wouldn't it be more effective to teach a kid what the proper boundaries and modes of behavior are, rather than just throwing up a bunch of "Don't Step On The Grass" signs?
It's very similar to the violent video games cause violence in children argument. I have played just about every violent video game I could find. I enjoy it. But my parents raised me in a very reasoned way, and explained to me the issues underlying violent behavior. As such, I know that a game is just a game and that violence behavior is reprehensible in the real world. Violent video games does not cause violent behavior for people who understand the difference between right and wrong, and the difference between the real world and a virtual one.
These distinctions come as a result of proper parenting, so that the child understands why there are limitations and chooses not to cross those lines and do something horrible or expose themselves to some of the terrors that prey on our children today. If you still wish to use technology or the government to put up additional limits at that point, that's fine. I'm just saying that if you teach someone why they shouldn't step on the grass, they are far less likely to step on the grass to spite the otherwise seemingly arbitrary sign that is ordering them to stay off the grass.
Although, maybe I'm just a privacy-paranoid moron who believes that teaching our kids is better than limiting them.
Seriously though, whatever happened to teaching your kids how to act? You know, that whole parenting thing? It's not parenting if you let a corporation or some gizmo do it for you...
... or Slashdot could be one side to the discussion in and of itself....
Yes. Dvorak, wrong again. Who would have thunk it. The guy has come to his pseudo-fame by making outlandish tech predictions for decades. He probably started out as a decent writer who couldn't set himself apart from the 94083094583094853098509834905 other tech writers out in the late 80s. Then he realized that if he started making counter-intuitive predictions that would take two sides of a polarized debate in technology and make them go into a flame war about it, people would read his stuff.
... Except stop paying attention.
This is his job we're talking about. He's not some sort of tech-prophet. He's a writer. He sells words, regardless of their truth and even more so, regardless of his belief in their truth. The more people read his stuff, the more influence he gets, the more his predictions carry any weight, the more money he makes.
If 2 billion people read Dvorak and all disagreed, he wouldn't care. He'd still get paid. As it stands, since all he is doing is predicting, he can't be wrong in the traditional sense, because he can simply say "Just you wait. You'll see!" And there's nothing we can do about it....
The problem with most touchscreens is that the best material for a display panel is usually also quite reactive to the oils found on the skin of our fingertips. This leads to unsightly smudges and fingerprints on the screen. The way this could be avoided would be something along the lines in Minority Report. They would have to invent, for lack of better words, a cyber thimble.
That way, one could do the manipulation without touching the screen, but rather a few inches in front of the screen. That would also alleviate the problem of the "arm waving" that was mentioned in an earlier post. No-touch technology would allow the user to scale his motions by how close or how far they are from the screen. A motion further away would have a bigger impact, one that was closer would be more precise.
I wonder what the projected time for release to consumers would be...
I hope the don't go from PowerMac to MacTop.
I thought you were going to go with... I for one welcome our new robot lawyer overlords.
Microsoft's business ideal was always take others' ideas and do them better. While I think there's nothing wrong with that, others may have disdain for a company that succeed to the extent that they can call the shots, and I understand and appreciate the concern.
I think Google is something else. Google is not selling a product. They are selling advertising. As such, it is not as much a monopoly because you can use other services. If the Google services are better, then the other companies need to get off their collective keister and do something about it. As has been stated in this thread, Google is very largely affected by the shareholders and the exposure that they gainf or the advertisers.
Not one sane marketing or PR person would stick with Google if some nefarious plot or conspiracy were the ultimate outcome, or even a likelihood. Look at Sony. People on this very site were decrying the benefits of the PS3 over the XBOX360. And while those people still badmouth the 360 for its stability issues, it is now Sony who is in hot water for horrendously vile business practices. Microsoft continues to win by milking the system. As soon as you step outside of the system, you lose me, and in many cases your advertisers. But since Microsoft is selling a product, and that product is THE product of choice, it can become an issue.
Google on the other hand, has one philosophy. Where there is a consumer, we will try to provide targeted and relevant advertising, and we will do so by providing a superior service. Who's affraid of Google? Everyone should be. Because when you are Google, why pick your battles if you can win every single one of them, not just for the advertisers (the clients), and the shareholders (the business interests), but also for the consumer. I have yet to see how Google is anything but a win-win situation. Granted Google's competition may have to worry, but this just means that someone has to step up and provide a better alternative. Again, in this case, the market, the advertisers, and the consumers win.
I don't see how any of this is a bad thing.
I may just have an oversimplified view of things though. Someone please correct any misconceptions I may have.
As many have pointed out in this thread, the problem is not with the video games but with the parenting. If there exists a violent video game under the sun, I have probably played it, and thoroughly enjoyed the gore in the process.
Still, I don't run around acting it out, because I was raised to understand the difference between reality and non-reality.
This is just like parents saying that Rock 'n Roll was going to turn us all into monsters; or certain books that were banned because of their inflammatory nature.
Parents in this country (or any other country (but this country especially)) need to grab their kids by the ears and let them know what's what, instead of blaming things like sex and/or violence in video-games and movies. It's almost like as though parents think they can just put parenting of their children on auto-pilot and rely on technology (various censoring and tracking gadgets) and the government (the FCC and whatever 1st Amendment-subversive bills "values"-driven politicans are trying to push through Congress these days).
It's almost as if parents today are affraid of getting their hands dirty or having to confront their kids in fear of "not being cool". You are a parent. You're job is NOT to be cool. Instead, you should be worrying about making sure that you raise a well-adjusted kid that doesn't think violence in video games is a green light to go postal on the world. It seemed to have worked for me.
Also, if you start censoring video games, you also have to censor movies and television. Why stop there? Books can be just as much of a hideaway from reality as anything else. For some people it's music that sets them off. For others it may be sports. Who here hasn't watched a Football game or a boxing match and thought to themselves, "Man, I wish I could flatten someone like that" and then thought of the specific person they wish they could flatten?
I'm just saying. The video games and the violence contained therein are not the problem. Instead, it's the fact that people in this country are no longer willing to take responsibilities for their actions, and more specifically their failures.
That starts with the top (politicians) right on down to the everyman, and it shouldn't take a video game to tell us that.
Let me be the first to say, that even if I could find 0SX free for my Intel box, I'd still pay for it. I've been clamoring for a way to run that system without buying a Mac ever since it came out.
But I agree, with frgough: Apple will probably lock it down to run on Apple-brand only.
It really is too bad. I would only need to boot into XP on the rare occasion that Wine isn't compatible with something in OSX...
Does anyone else think it's ironic that Mac is switching to Intel, while Microsoft's XBOX360 is running on a G5? What's next? Nintendo using old Sega Mastersystem hardware?
(see: "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette for examples of non-irony)
Again, I must ask why we care so much about this? Why do we care so much that any thread debating the qualities of any OS over another will undoubtedly get more comments than most other stories and will likely be guaranteed a greenlight over any number of more interesting submissions?
I wonder: If we cared as much about politics as we care about our (OS and other Tech/Sports/Car/Fashion/Television and other Media) rivalries, we might actually be able to show conclusively whether or not democracy works on a large scale!
Imagine that...
Oh well, instead I guess I'm going to get on my Windows PC, to google what the model girlfriend of my favorite football player was wearing in that car commercial on Access Hollywood last night
It's all so frustrating...
The only reason why I said OSX is kinda a third option is that under the hood, OSX is somewhat related to linux. (Before you jump down my throat, I'll tell you that I know there is a distinct difference between Linux and Mac's flavor of Unix).
But this article is more about Linux v. Windows, and both of those systems may be installed on the large amounts of PCs already owned by people, and wouldn't necessitate buying a whole new system.
That being said, Macs are looking more and more attractive and I'd get one if I had the income.
...or are Microsoft and Linux debates turning into epic yet somehow very stale regurgitations of old arguments (much red-state/blue-state squabbles)?
/. to go a day without a Linux/Windows "discussion"
At this point, I wish there were a viable third option. I guess osX counts as a third option, but still... I just want something to break the monotony. Where is a OS/2 Warp upgrade when you need one?
Either way, I fear it has become impossible for
Maybe I'm wrong... *shrug*
That is a good argument, but most courts agree that advertising is considered a use in commerce.
Do I think these things get out of hand? Yes
Do I think Intellectual Propert rights in this country are being used to foster progress and creativity and to protect the consumer, as the framers of the Constitution intended? No
Is this business as usual? It stinks, but yes.