For starters, the phone industry is growing faster each day, expecting more speed, more features, more apps to run. One of the key selling points behind the iPhone, as well as Droid and other Android phones, among other things, is that it is fairly easy for ANYONE, including the consumers, to develop apps for, creating a large market of apps for the phone. Phones are pretty similar, in this regard, and no phone is able to dominate over the others overwhelmingly due to this fact, unless, should one decide to make it very difficult for amateur games to be developed on the device, decreasing the number of games and other apps significantly. Smart phones were the product of a lively and constantly growing industry.
Compare that to the dead home console industry NES was born in. There are tons of marketing advantages Nintendo had due to lack of real competition. Commodore 64 barely even counts as competition to the business model Nintendo released in. Nintendo ran almost unopposed. If Nintendo did something bad to their buisness model, such as make it more restrictive some how, they are still the de-facto game console. Studios, that wished to survive, would have to just put up with the restrictions.
In addition, the restrictions Nintendo put in place was ALWAYS the policy for the console, not one they did later as was being suggested Apple may do. Later, during the late SNES era and N64 era, their restrictiveness actually DID cost them their market share, because it only got worse, and unlike before there WERE other consoles to develop games on, with arguably better hardware as well. Gamecube attempted to fix a lot of those issues, and their policies fit more in line with other console developers, including as far as how much assistance they get with Gamecube's development environments and etc. Even today with Wii, they have not fully recovered from the SNES and N64 era damages they caused with third parties, though they are in much better shape at least.
iOS has certain freedoms, such as ease of app development, which is seen as a feature to the consumers, and such a move would be seen as a removal of existing freedoms and features. In Nintendo's case, they were making more restrictions against studios. They are free to restrict studios' freedoms all they want, so long as it is way out of the consumer's eyes, they could care less. How easy it is to develop on the NES at the time didn't seem like a feature to consumers the way it is advertised for smart phones today. In Apple's case, they would be restricting groups closer to the consumers, the amateurs that develop the little game app they love so much. Consumers would see that, and would also see that app on the Android and not the iPhone. Apple-fanboy/girl effects aside, they will lose a lot of their phone market. iPhone just won't have the same features and apps as Android phones. Simple as that.
I strongly doubt that. One of the main selling points of iPhone is how easy it is to develop for (though in comparison to Andriod, it lacks. Regardless, when the Apple app store was first released, it was the one of the first of its kind and scale). Making the SDK even more exclusive, by having these kinds of requirements in addition to the restrictions that already apply to iPhone apps, would kill iPhone pretty quickly.
My mom connects all sorts of stuff to the computer. All the time actually. Sometimes even without my direct turn-by-turn instructions. She even figured out how to convert old family video tapes into DVDs using some Roxio studio thing more or less on her own. And that one was reasonably complex, involving connecting a VCR to a little USB cable thing, which then connects to the computer.
Look, I do have 2 parents that are not so tech-savy myself, but I also think people grossly underestimate the average PC user. From my experience with not so tech-savy people nowadays, they are more likely to think something can be connected to the computer that actually can't, than as you suggested, think something can't be connected at all. They just don't quite understand how such a connection would work all the time until they have the will to actually play with it in various configurations to try and get it working. That is, they tend to over-estimate technology, not underestimate it. All it took for her to realize she can attach a camera to her PC is to notice the "cable that connects stuff to the PC", or in other words, the USB cable, in the camera's packaging. That and, usually, the box says it as plain as day...
Likewise, we also have one of those SD card printers, but we only bought it because it also had the regular functions of a printer. Never once as the SD card slot been used. Much more difficult to use than just connecting the camera to the PC using an oh-so familiar cable that seems to magically connect whatever device it came with to the front ports on the PC, finding the photo after Windows shows you all the contents of the camera, and clicking print, maybe after toying around with paper trays if she is trying to get it to print on the photo paper.
Once they know what a USB cable is, it is usually smooth sailing from there. They can connect all sorts of stuff you would not assume the average Joe PC user to own but actually do and are able to figure out and use. And the USB cable is usually shown in a little n step picture in the camera's packaging.
Um... What? This is considered cheating? And this was modded 5 Insightful too.
So is buying a better graphics card than someone else cheating too? After all, by buying a better graphics card than everyone you are playing a game with, you are getting a better FPS than the other players, and thus the computer will draw threats on your screen faster and smoother than it draws threats on your opponent's screen. You put extra money down for a game advantage for that graphics card than your opponent did. Using a high-speed internet service like cable internet or DSL, which also costs more than Dial-up, puts me at a major advantage over Dial-up gamers. Should I be forced to switch over to my old AOL 56k to avoid "cheating" those players? How about if no money is involved? Can we use aimbots if no money is paid? After all, everyone could just go and download the same aimbot for free.
Money has absolutely nothing at all to do with cheating. Whatsoever.
As for the network neutrality issue: Where does this whole "The suggestion that what we have now works is as laughable as it is wrong." thing come from? As far as I have known, we have only been worried about the potential for ISPs to "hold people hostage" and none have done so yet. Even if some have and I'm seemingly unaware of this, as I don't obsessively read about the issue very much, it is likely far from being so broken as to be described as "laughable" as, again, there would be a lot more reports on people being held hostage by their ISPs. On the other hand, actual good intentions and business models run the risk of being harmed from network neutrality, such as this company. Debateably at least, depending on how the legislation is written.
Where did you get the idea most American games require credit cards? Very few games actually REQUIRE credit card payments. Customers just tend to use them out of convenience. You can pay for X-Box Live accounts in-store, which more or less throws the "Most American online games" out the window on its own considering how large the X-Box Live userbase is. You can pay with cash in the store. Valve games such as Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead (2) all can be bought in-store without a credit card as well. Most games offered on Steam have retail versions which often can be bought without credit cards.
World of Warcraft can be done this way too, I think, but I've only seen cards up to 60 days. Others may exist if you really wanted to do it that way though. And that's basically the other half of American online games. I've seen cards like this for other MMORPG games as well, but sure, not all of them offer these cards.
There probably are some that fit your description, but it's likely due to the company not seeing much point to releasing cards like those as their userbases are much smaller than WoW's userbase, not because they have some potentially malicious conspiracy to use the information obtained by card purchase. China's reasoning for including real names, on the other hand, is pretty obvious and they'd probably even be fine with telling you they intend to use it to violate people's privacy (just worded in that special kinda China way). American online games that perhaps have access to that information have it not because it was intended, rather, it was easier for the customer to provide it because they wanted to buy the game from their computer desk rather than in a retail store (We're lazy).
A lot of people think they own their equipment, when in reality, they do not. As many have stated, companies tend to lease the equipment for use on their networks.
And therefore you can infer that the customers do matter to those EVIL MEGA CORPORATIONS because if the EVIL MEGA CORPORATIONS get bad PR from customers who get shotty service and/or performance (because untreated security issues) or the EVIL MEGA CORPORATIONS get bad PR from snooping in people's private LANs, customers will not buy as much from that EVIL MEGA CORPORATION. That's bad for the EVIL MEGA CORPORATION.
I don't know much about the TR-69 system, but I assume it's not horribly expensive to implement. Odds are benefits of protecting customers using it far outweigh the bad PR from not doing so.
Did you bother reading what he quoted and what he was responding to?
Expansions will operate the same way they did with Brood War. You won't have a complete online multiplayer experience if you can't even build all the units or buildings. Sure it will have seperate multiplayers, like Starcraft 1/Brood War did. Regardless, the/complete/ multiplayer experience will be the one with all units, requiring the expansions. The expansions will add single player content, as well as multiplayer content, contradicting the idea that they are single-player only expansions.
But there are many applications where using an O(n) sorting algorithm actually is useful, and fast. It is what "CS guys" are talking about. It's not just a useless technicality.
For instance, sorting large numbers of telephone numbers, sorting zip-codes or other integer data can be done in linear time using a non-comparison based sorting algorithm like Radix Sort. This isn't just a technicality that creates the faster than O(nlogn) time complexity, it covers a large range of common problems that people often use the wrong algorithms to preform because people don't know they can do better than O(nlogn) in specialized situations.
Likewise, if you know the data is to have a certain pattern that isn't necessarily random, you sometimes may use even O(n^2) algorithms that work much faster in practice than quicksort or other O(nlogn) ones. In general, your solutions should be built around your expected data. The linear time sorting algorithms I know off my head often require looking a bit more into the data and realizing they apply.
Most books on computer networks that I have seen use bps. But I haven't seen many. I suppose the counter question would then be: What's wrong with "bps" instead of "b/s"?
Console games are roughly like their PC counterparts nowadays. Consoles are basically specialized computers. The only notable feature the PC versions of games sometimes have that the console ones do not is the ability to mod them using toolkits the developer provides. And that is pretty rare still. I can only think of three games that have been released on consoles and PCs that this is relevant for.
Sometimes they get dumbed down versions, or versions that are just ignored after release. From my understanding, Team Fortress 2 for PS3/360 sucks compared to PC because they never update it, and you can do ancient map exploits on them, and etc. But that isn't too common.
Yeah, because dropping a few nukes a few of our own cities to stop a small rebellion would sure go over well.
Are you being serious?
Armed resistance of any kind would likely not involve weapons designed strictly for international deterrence... Of course, the US public is still not well armed, but comparatively better than the Australian, and most western nations' public.
Because it was a crime against US soil. The reported damages were made on US soil. When you commit a crime on X's soil, you should be prosecuted by X, if you are to be at all.
Hate speech is different for the reason being it damages regardless of nationality of the server. It isn't a crime against a server, rather, an attack against a class of people.
Grandparent never said you wouldn't get your search results. But it remains true that the searches, were it not for advertising, have little economic worth to google.
Google makes money through its advertisements. Google's real customers are those who have their links in the search results, and you the searcher, are the product that makes those companies want their links there.
Getting good search results consistently helps ensure the shelves are never bare.
The definition of real robot does require it be autonomous, but being tethered to a power supply is not a restriction for a robot. Not any definition I have ever seen.
Of course, rarely do people use the term that strictly, specifically in the military, where such robots would often not be preferred to human controlled ones. I.e. A completely autonomous Predator drone would be very very bad, if it was to actually determine what is or is not a threat on its own and blow the brains out of what is and avoid harming what is not. "Robots" they send into warfare, that I know of, are all controlled by humans, but make their tasks easier or safer (such as remote observance or bomb defusing, etc.)
Yeah, this confused me too when I saw that they were selling a Fallout trilogy. I thought it would include FO3 as well, and for a considerably low price. Read the description, and realized it didn't. I ended up buying it a few months later anyhow, as the original series runs great on my netbook.
Not only that, but we can have the breeder reactors make more reactors. We can video tape them and sell the videos to some naughty website. These things will really pay for themselves and then some.
The "Fairness Doctrine", while I strongly dislike it, doesn't seek to do this. Fairness doctrine attempts to create "unbalanced" reporting by forcing holders of broadcast licenses to give equal time, but not for candidates, rather, controversial issues. Notice that it is not requiring, in any way, the broadcasters be American. Nationality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
Yet many models other than capitalism can sound as absolutely as insane as this baseless straw man if you go grossly out of your way to make it so.
Of course, that is why/nobody/ is advocating pure capitalism and/nobody/ is advocating pure socialism, or pure communism or pure environmentalism or whatever. All such purities can be made into absurdities.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a poor comparison though.
For starters, the phone industry is growing faster each day, expecting more speed, more features, more apps to run. One of the key selling points behind the iPhone, as well as Droid and other Android phones, among other things, is that it is fairly easy for ANYONE, including the consumers, to develop apps for, creating a large market of apps for the phone. Phones are pretty similar, in this regard, and no phone is able to dominate over the others overwhelmingly due to this fact, unless, should one decide to make it very difficult for amateur games to be developed on the device, decreasing the number of games and other apps significantly. Smart phones were the product of a lively and constantly growing industry.
Compare that to the dead home console industry NES was born in. There are tons of marketing advantages Nintendo had due to lack of real competition. Commodore 64 barely even counts as competition to the business model Nintendo released in. Nintendo ran almost unopposed. If Nintendo did something bad to their buisness model, such as make it more restrictive some how, they are still the de-facto game console. Studios, that wished to survive, would have to just put up with the restrictions.
In addition, the restrictions Nintendo put in place was ALWAYS the policy for the console, not one they did later as was being suggested Apple may do. Later, during the late SNES era and N64 era, their restrictiveness actually DID cost them their market share, because it only got worse, and unlike before there WERE other consoles to develop games on, with arguably better hardware as well. Gamecube attempted to fix a lot of those issues, and their policies fit more in line with other console developers, including as far as how much assistance they get with Gamecube's development environments and etc. Even today with Wii, they have not fully recovered from the SNES and N64 era damages they caused with third parties, though they are in much better shape at least.
iOS has certain freedoms, such as ease of app development, which is seen as a feature to the consumers, and such a move would be seen as a removal of existing freedoms and features. In Nintendo's case, they were making more restrictions against studios. They are free to restrict studios' freedoms all they want, so long as it is way out of the consumer's eyes, they could care less. How easy it is to develop on the NES at the time didn't seem like a feature to consumers the way it is advertised for smart phones today. In Apple's case, they would be restricting groups closer to the consumers, the amateurs that develop the little game app they love so much. Consumers would see that, and would also see that app on the Android and not the iPhone. Apple-fanboy/girl effects aside, they will lose a lot of their phone market. iPhone just won't have the same features and apps as Android phones. Simple as that.
I strongly doubt that. One of the main selling points of iPhone is how easy it is to develop for (though in comparison to Andriod, it lacks. Regardless, when the Apple app store was first released, it was the one of the first of its kind and scale). Making the SDK even more exclusive, by having these kinds of requirements in addition to the restrictions that already apply to iPhone apps, would kill iPhone pretty quickly.
My mom connects all sorts of stuff to the computer. All the time actually. Sometimes even without my direct turn-by-turn instructions. She even figured out how to convert old family video tapes into DVDs using some Roxio studio thing more or less on her own. And that one was reasonably complex, involving connecting a VCR to a little USB cable thing, which then connects to the computer.
Look, I do have 2 parents that are not so tech-savy myself, but I also think people grossly underestimate the average PC user. From my experience with not so tech-savy people nowadays, they are more likely to think something can be connected to the computer that actually can't, than as you suggested, think something can't be connected at all. They just don't quite understand how such a connection would work all the time until they have the will to actually play with it in various configurations to try and get it working. That is, they tend to over-estimate technology, not underestimate it. All it took for her to realize she can attach a camera to her PC is to notice the "cable that connects stuff to the PC", or in other words, the USB cable, in the camera's packaging. That and, usually, the box says it as plain as day...
Likewise, we also have one of those SD card printers, but we only bought it because it also had the regular functions of a printer. Never once as the SD card slot been used. Much more difficult to use than just connecting the camera to the PC using an oh-so familiar cable that seems to magically connect whatever device it came with to the front ports on the PC, finding the photo after Windows shows you all the contents of the camera, and clicking print, maybe after toying around with paper trays if she is trying to get it to print on the photo paper.
Once they know what a USB cable is, it is usually smooth sailing from there. They can connect all sorts of stuff you would not assume the average Joe PC user to own but actually do and are able to figure out and use. And the USB cable is usually shown in a little n step picture in the camera's packaging.
Um... What? This is considered cheating? And this was modded 5 Insightful too.
So is buying a better graphics card than someone else cheating too? After all, by buying a better graphics card than everyone you are playing a game with, you are getting a better FPS than the other players, and thus the computer will draw threats on your screen faster and smoother than it draws threats on your opponent's screen. You put extra money down for a game advantage for that graphics card than your opponent did. Using a high-speed internet service like cable internet or DSL, which also costs more than Dial-up, puts me at a major advantage over Dial-up gamers. Should I be forced to switch over to my old AOL 56k to avoid "cheating" those players? How about if no money is involved? Can we use aimbots if no money is paid? After all, everyone could just go and download the same aimbot for free.
Money has absolutely nothing at all to do with cheating. Whatsoever.
As for the network neutrality issue: Where does this whole "The suggestion that what we have now works is as laughable as it is wrong." thing come from? As far as I have known, we have only been worried about the potential for ISPs to "hold people hostage" and none have done so yet. Even if some have and I'm seemingly unaware of this, as I don't obsessively read about the issue very much, it is likely far from being so broken as to be described as "laughable" as, again, there would be a lot more reports on people being held hostage by their ISPs. On the other hand, actual good intentions and business models run the risk of being harmed from network neutrality, such as this company. Debateably at least, depending on how the legislation is written.
Where did you get the idea most American games require credit cards? Very few games actually REQUIRE credit card payments. Customers just tend to use them out of convenience. You can pay for X-Box Live accounts in-store, which more or less throws the "Most American online games" out the window on its own considering how large the X-Box Live userbase is. You can pay with cash in the store. Valve games such as Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead (2) all can be bought in-store without a credit card as well. Most games offered on Steam have retail versions which often can be bought without credit cards.
World of Warcraft can be done this way too, I think, but I've only seen cards up to 60 days. Others may exist if you really wanted to do it that way though. And that's basically the other half of American online games. I've seen cards like this for other MMORPG games as well, but sure, not all of them offer these cards.
There probably are some that fit your description, but it's likely due to the company not seeing much point to releasing cards like those as their userbases are much smaller than WoW's userbase, not because they have some potentially malicious conspiracy to use the information obtained by card purchase. China's reasoning for including real names, on the other hand, is pretty obvious and they'd probably even be fine with telling you they intend to use it to violate people's privacy (just worded in that special kinda China way). American online games that perhaps have access to that information have it not because it was intended, rather, it was easier for the customer to provide it because they wanted to buy the game from their computer desk rather than in a retail store (We're lazy).
A lot of people think they own their equipment, when in reality, they do not. As many have stated, companies tend to lease the equipment for use on their networks.
Yes. Right.
And therefore you can infer that the customers do matter to those EVIL MEGA CORPORATIONS because if the EVIL MEGA CORPORATIONS get bad PR from customers who get shotty service and/or performance (because untreated security issues) or the EVIL MEGA CORPORATIONS get bad PR from snooping in people's private LANs, customers will not buy as much from that EVIL MEGA CORPORATION. That's bad for the EVIL MEGA CORPORATION.
I don't know much about the TR-69 system, but I assume it's not horribly expensive to implement. Odds are benefits of protecting customers using it far outweigh the bad PR from not doing so.
Did you bother reading what he quoted and what he was responding to?
Expansions will operate the same way they did with Brood War. You won't have a complete online multiplayer experience if you can't even build all the units or buildings. Sure it will have seperate multiplayers, like Starcraft 1/Brood War did. Regardless, the /complete/ multiplayer experience will be the one with all units, requiring the expansions. The expansions will add single player content, as well as multiplayer content, contradicting the idea that they are single-player only expansions.
Problem with that train of thought: You can use Steam without updating it.
If there's no network connection, how would an old version even know its old?
But there are many applications where using an O(n) sorting algorithm actually is useful, and fast. It is what "CS guys" are talking about. It's not just a useless technicality.
For instance, sorting large numbers of telephone numbers, sorting zip-codes or other integer data can be done in linear time using a non-comparison based sorting algorithm like Radix Sort. This isn't just a technicality that creates the faster than O(nlogn) time complexity, it covers a large range of common problems that people often use the wrong algorithms to preform because people don't know they can do better than O(nlogn) in specialized situations.
Likewise, if you know the data is to have a certain pattern that isn't necessarily random, you sometimes may use even O(n^2) algorithms that work much faster in practice than quicksort or other O(nlogn) ones. In general, your solutions should be built around your expected data. The linear time sorting algorithms I know off my head often require looking a bit more into the data and realizing they apply.
Most books on computer networks that I have seen use bps. But I haven't seen many. I suppose the counter question would then be: What's wrong with "bps" instead of "b/s"?
Console games are roughly like their PC counterparts nowadays. Consoles are basically specialized computers. The only notable feature the PC versions of games sometimes have that the console ones do not is the ability to mod them using toolkits the developer provides. And that is pretty rare still. I can only think of three games that have been released on consoles and PCs that this is relevant for.
Sometimes they get dumbed down versions, or versions that are just ignored after release. From my understanding, Team Fortress 2 for PS3/360 sucks compared to PC because they never update it, and you can do ancient map exploits on them, and etc. But that isn't too common.
Yeah, because dropping a few nukes a few of our own cities to stop a small rebellion would sure go over well.
Are you being serious?
Armed resistance of any kind would likely not involve weapons designed strictly for international deterrence... Of course, the US public is still not well armed, but comparatively better than the Australian, and most western nations' public.
Because it was a crime against US soil. The reported damages were made on US soil. When you commit a crime on X's soil, you should be prosecuted by X, if you are to be at all.
Hate speech is different for the reason being it damages regardless of nationality of the server. It isn't a crime against a server, rather, an attack against a class of people.
It's a little button, usually at the top right of your browser, that looks like an "X".
Grandparent never said you wouldn't get your search results. But it remains true that the searches, were it not for advertising, have little economic worth to google.
Google makes money through its advertisements. Google's real customers are those who have their links in the search results, and you the searcher, are the product that makes those companies want their links there.
Getting good search results consistently helps ensure the shelves are never bare.
The definition of real robot does require it be autonomous, but being tethered to a power supply is not a restriction for a robot. Not any definition I have ever seen.
Of course, rarely do people use the term that strictly, specifically in the military, where such robots would often not be preferred to human controlled ones. I.e. A completely autonomous Predator drone would be very very bad, if it was to actually determine what is or is not a threat on its own and blow the brains out of what is and avoid harming what is not. "Robots" they send into warfare, that I know of, are all controlled by humans, but make their tasks easier or safer (such as remote observance or bomb defusing, etc.)
Also the announcement is just in time for the relevant Wii title A Boy and His Blob.
And yeah, its based on that old NES game of the same name.
Yeah. You know. Just like the PS3. A well built Japanese product that basically never gives yellow lights of death.
owait.
(Bad generalization was bad)
Yeah, this confused me too when I saw that they were selling a Fallout trilogy. I thought it would include FO3 as well, and for a considerably low price. Read the description, and realized it didn't. I ended up buying it a few months later anyhow, as the original series runs great on my netbook.
There is skill in a lot of gambling games. Notably Poker.
Not only that, but we can have the breeder reactors make more reactors. We can video tape them and sell the videos to some naughty website. These things will really pay for themselves and then some.
Then release two versions of each title, a red and blue version. The red version has half of the enemies, and the blue one has the rest.
The "Fairness Doctrine", while I strongly dislike it, doesn't seek to do this. Fairness doctrine attempts to create "unbalanced" reporting by forcing holders of broadcast licenses to give equal time, but not for candidates, rather, controversial issues. Notice that it is not requiring, in any way, the broadcasters be American. Nationality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.
Yet many models other than capitalism can sound as absolutely as insane as this baseless straw man if you go grossly out of your way to make it so.
Of course, that is why /nobody/ is advocating pure capitalism and /nobody/ is advocating pure socialism, or pure communism or pure environmentalism or whatever. All such purities can be made into absurdities.