About the price, my mistake. I looked at the price in european stores (I'm from europe) and automatically assumed it would be comparable in dollars like most products are. Anyway, here it costs 459 Euros for the 20 GB model, or about $580.
From the way you worded your comment, I got the impression you were suggesting that all of the iPod users who "onlyhave them because everyone they know does" would be better served with a Cowon, as an alternative, and I simply gave my opinion on why it couldn't be overly successful.
And if you can name any better music software that is as simple to use as iTunes, and let's you organize your collection easier and faster, I would like to hear it.
Well, thw RIAA artists (or publishers) have a right to decide where to sell their music, and believe it or not, a simple DRM is very effective in preventing casual copyright infringement.
Sure, any mp3 Player user will know how to download from emule and give it around, but they know that they are doing something illegal and anybody they give it to will know that aswell.
But compare it to copying legally downloaded music and giving it to a freind. "Hey, could I have that track you just payed for on iTunes? Sure *copies it over*" Without DRM this would continue endlessly, because it's so easy to do, and people will say "well, it's been paid for". Overall I think that the digital age needs us to wholly rethink the purpose and concept of copyright, not just extend the length and making it illegal to do things that are only for your own enjoyment.
Believe it or not, it's not that easy to crack Apple's DRM. It's locked up to the account, and any solutions sofar have involved pretending to be itunes to get new keys. If there were a way to play Fairplay tracks on a modded mp3 Player, you could bet there'd be one.
But the only way that manufacturers could get Fairplay tracks to play without violating the DMCA would be to cooperate with Apple.
Alot of companies have tried with high-end products like that, but none of them will ever take over any signifigant marketshare.
For one, it's fucking expensive. $450 is alot, even if it has got nice features. For most people ease of use is more important than support for every format etc. The only reason I got an iPod as opposed to some other mp3 player is because I was so impressed with iTunes (have you tried out the new version 7? Awesome!)
Sure, these things might be nice toys for those who like to play around with them, but they really need to be accessable for alot of people, and offer a new experience to fit in to the "digital lifestyle"
The Universe is about 78 billion lightyears accross. Although it doesn't seem to make sense, I think it is to do with relativity. The oldest radiation that can reach us is from about 400 000 years after the big bang when atoms formed, which let light pass through and the universe became transparent.
Not so much anymore. Since WMAP it has generally been accepted that 13.7 billion years is the best bet, with a few theories here and there that claim to give a more accurate date.
I was at the exhibition at CERN a few weeks ago, and I think their own display boards might be a good source. Anyway, they were claiming that the last time energy densities like the ones at LHC existed were microseconds, or less, after the big bang, before the four forces were distinct.
Nah, I would buy the $600 version even though I haven't got an HDTV (I won't be buying either). Most HDTVs use analog signals anyway, so even most HDTV owners wouldn't need HDMI.
The thing about it though is WiFi, more Hard Drive space and the ability to read SD cards. Considering that a WiFi upgrade would probably set you back at least forty dollars, it makes alot of sense.
I bought the soundtrack of Final Fantasy 7, and the amount of musical composition in that one game is just mindblowing. Four and a half hours of non-repetative, individual music.
Apart from being a stunning game, it is also one of the best musical works, and certainly beats some of the stuff written by more "classical" artists, still listened to today, despite being considered mediocre at their time.
Nah, most people will be using some sort of PAL signal for their consoles, while their TV wil automatically recognise dirfferent signals. Depends also on the cable You're using.
Replace "Madden" with "FIFA" and you've got a rough idea of the european market, although "Pro Evolution Soccer" has snuck in in the last couple of years.
You can't compare the whole of Sony with the computer entertainment subdivision. For a while and up until now, the gaming division was just about the only successful business for Sony. And as far as the gaming side of things goes, Sony hasn't changed a bit since it brought out the Playstation. So I think your comments about Minidisc and the like are irrelevant for this topic. Basically DRM hasn't been an issue with the Playstation.
As far as past console launches go, I've never seen a launch quite like this one. Most people were somewhat optimistic and excited about new consoles, and who would win was anyone's guess. But this has just been hype, hype, dissappointment.
You can't compare them to minidiscs because they were intended as a digital replacement for cassettes (quite a good one too), wheras HD DVDs are for media distribution.
And although I won't be too eager to jump aboard too soon, I know that HDTV is the future, and in ten years we will all look back and shudder at the days without it. And so that the video market isn't dominated by DRM-crippled Hard-Drive-Internet-Distribution, I think that it is necessary to have some kind of HD-Media.
BTW, governments aren't enforcing HD, but digital television, as switching to digital would free up a large part of the radio spectrum that is now used for analog TV Broadcast, and auction it off for billions.
When you say about their terms, I don't quite see what you're getting at. If you're talking about the EULA's, well I've always ignored them as their legality is a little questionable. But one term you do have to agree with is the law. Specifically about purchase and licensing. Basically, If you want copyrighted material, you have to pay what it's selling for, and you can't pirate a game just because you don't like it.
And by the way, Videogames have always been expensive. Sixty dollars was quite normal for SNES games, many even more. I'd be willing to say that games have gotten cheaper over the past years, Oblivion cost me less than 40 for example.
Any short statement like "piracy is killing PC games" can be regarded as simplistic beacause there are always many aspects to it. But If publishers can't sell their products because there are so many poeple saying "your games are so crappy you don't deserve my money, games were better before, I don't want to give you money for it...", but still play them all day, isn't that exactly what the statement says?
No they don't. But you're forgetting one small point: Most people don't play free games, because they're crap. If pirates were to ditch piracy, and could get all their enjoyment from free games, the industry wouldn't deserve any kind of credit.
As it is, commercial games are simply better, and pirates like to play them more.
I never said anybody can cry foul just because a legitimate product is eating up their share of the market. It just isn't a valid argument that somebody would do something else if they couldn't pirate a game.
People who pirate videogames seem to find them more entertaining than church or librairies etc. If they want this better entertainment, they have to pay for it.
If they were to give up games, nobody would say a thing. Doesn't give them a right to free computer games though.
They might not be entitled to it, but it comes naturally if you create material that becomes popular. They own the copyright to the material, so if it becomes popular, yes, they are entitled to profit from that demand.
Another POV is this: People say they're doing no harm by pirating, because they wouldn't buy it even if they couldn't pirate it. But what would they do with the time they spend playing? Even so, since when has anybody been entitled to free games, even if they "wouldn't buy them anyway"?
Completely and utterly. Basically, most energy that is used in most processes, ends up as heat. The difference being that you would use up more energy in the less efficient process for your needs, than in the more efficient one. But even the energy that goes into the desired process enentually ends up as heat. You're example with the light bulb is the same. Say you want so many lux from a regular light bulb, you need a certain amount of energy. If you want the same light from an LED, you will need to use less energy.
But if you power an LED with the same power you power the bulb with, then it will release alot more light, but that light will heat the surfaces it hits, unless you release it off into space.
Because most applications don't release huge amounts of power as electromagnetic radiation though, the energy consumption is directly related to the heat production.
This is not an agency you can dictate to regarding their operations. It is a private organization.
Of course you can. You can require that anyone calling themselves an independant rating agency actually does the rating, and examines the media itself.
I can't call myself a doctor if all I do is listen to what a patient tells me, and don't do any examinations myself.
You're basically talking about creating a new and massive government bureacracy for one thing - to rate video games.
No, it would still be an independant agency.
This is how you want your tax dollars spent?
The ERSB isn't funded by taxes.
Because the ESRB is not going to spend this money, nor do they have to.
If they want to do their job, they will have to spend money. It might mean a higher price for publishers to get a game rated, but around $2000 for a rating should be perfectly reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
About the price, my mistake. I looked at the price in european stores (I'm from europe) and automatically assumed it would be comparable in dollars like most products are. Anyway, here it costs 459 Euros for the 20 GB model, or about $580.
From the way you worded your comment, I got the impression you were suggesting that all of the iPod users who "onlyhave them because everyone they know does" would be better served with a Cowon, as an alternative, and I simply gave my opinion on why it couldn't be overly successful.
And if you can name any better music software that is as simple to use as iTunes, and let's you organize your collection easier and faster, I would like to hear it.
Well, thw RIAA artists (or publishers) have a right to decide where to sell their music, and believe it or not, a simple DRM is very effective in preventing casual copyright infringement.
Sure, any mp3 Player user will know how to download from emule and give it around, but they know that they are doing something illegal and anybody they give it to will know that aswell.
But compare it to copying legally downloaded music and giving it to a freind. "Hey, could I have that track you just payed for on iTunes? Sure *copies it over*" Without DRM this would continue endlessly, because it's so easy to do, and people will say "well, it's been paid for".
Overall I think that the digital age needs us to wholly rethink the purpose and concept of copyright, not just extend the length and making it illegal to do things that are only for your own enjoyment.
Believe it or not, it's not that easy to crack Apple's DRM. It's locked up to the account, and any solutions sofar have involved pretending to be itunes to get new keys. If there were a way to play Fairplay tracks on a modded mp3 Player, you could bet there'd be one.
But the only way that manufacturers could get Fairplay tracks to play without violating the DMCA would be to cooperate with Apple.
All they need now is their UI software called "iZunes" (I wonder if it works with Macs)
Alot of companies have tried with high-end products like that, but none of them will ever take over any signifigant marketshare.
For one, it's fucking expensive. $450 is alot, even if it has got nice features.
For most people ease of use is more important than support for every format etc. The only reason I got an iPod as opposed to some other mp3 player is because I was so impressed with iTunes (have you tried out the new version 7? Awesome!)
Sure, these things might be nice toys for those who like to play around with them, but they really need to be accessable for alot of people, and offer a new experience to fit in to the "digital lifestyle"
The Universe is about 78 billion lightyears accross. Although it doesn't seem to make sense, I think it is to do with relativity.
The oldest radiation that can reach us is from about 400 000 years after the big bang when atoms formed, which let light pass through and the universe became transparent.
Not so much anymore. Since WMAP it has generally been accepted that 13.7 billion years is the best bet, with a few theories here and there that claim to give a more accurate date.
I think you might be mistaken.
I was at the exhibition at CERN a few weeks ago, and I think their own display boards might be a good source.
Anyway, they were claiming that the last time energy densities like the ones at LHC existed were microseconds, or less, after the big bang, before the four forces were distinct.
Nah, I would buy the $600 version even though I haven't got an HDTV (I won't be buying either). Most HDTVs use analog signals anyway, so even most HDTV owners wouldn't need HDMI.
The thing about it though is WiFi, more Hard Drive space and the ability to read SD cards. Considering that a WiFi upgrade would probably set you back at least forty dollars, it makes alot of sense.
Well, back then they
1) had millions of units ready, instead of 500 000
2) had a launch price of half that what the premium PS3 costs
3) didn't face any fair competition
I bought the soundtrack of Final Fantasy 7, and the amount of musical composition in that one game is just mindblowing. Four and a half hours of non-repetative, individual music.
Apart from being a stunning game, it is also one of the best musical works, and certainly beats some of the stuff written by more "classical" artists, still listened to today, despite being considered mediocre at their time.
Nah, most people will be using some sort of PAL signal for their consoles, while their TV wil automatically recognise dirfferent signals. Depends also on the cable You're using.
BTW, what's this to do with anything?
Replace "Madden" with "FIFA" and you've got a rough idea of the european market, although "Pro Evolution Soccer" has snuck in in the last couple of years.
You can't compare the whole of Sony with the computer entertainment subdivision. For a while and up until now, the gaming division was just about the only successful business for Sony. And as far as the gaming side of things goes, Sony hasn't changed a bit since it brought out the Playstation. So I think your comments about Minidisc and the like are irrelevant for this topic. Basically DRM hasn't been an issue with the Playstation.
As far as past console launches go, I've never seen a launch quite like this one. Most people were somewhat optimistic and excited about new consoles, and who would win was anyone's guess. But this has just been hype, hype, dissappointment.
You can't compare them to minidiscs because they were intended as a digital replacement for cassettes (quite a good one too), wheras HD DVDs are for media distribution.
And although I won't be too eager to jump aboard too soon, I know that HDTV is the future, and in ten years we will all look back and shudder at the days without it.
And so that the video market isn't dominated by DRM-crippled Hard-Drive-Internet-Distribution, I think that it is necessary to have some kind of HD-Media.
BTW, governments aren't enforcing HD, but digital television, as switching to digital would free up a large part of the radio spectrum that is now used for analog TV Broadcast, and auction it off for billions.
The $500 Version? Pah. No wireless, less space than a Nomad. LAME (It's funny cause it's true)
Hehe, stupid div. *giggle* Special relativity *giggle*
When you say about their terms, I don't quite see what you're getting at. If you're talking about the EULA's, well I've always ignored them as their legality is a little questionable.
...", but still play them all day, isn't that exactly what the statement says?
But one term you do have to agree with is the law. Specifically about purchase and licensing. Basically, If you want copyrighted material, you have to pay what it's selling for, and you can't pirate a game just because you don't like it.
And by the way, Videogames have always been expensive. Sixty dollars was quite normal for SNES games, many even more. I'd be willing to say that games have gotten cheaper over the past years, Oblivion cost me less than 40 for example.
Any short statement like "piracy is killing PC games" can be regarded as simplistic beacause there are always many aspects to it.
But If publishers can't sell their products because there are so many poeple saying "your games are so crappy you don't deserve my money, games were better before, I don't want to give you money for it
No they don't. But you're forgetting one small point: Most people don't play free games, because they're crap. If pirates were to ditch piracy, and could get all their enjoyment from free games, the industry wouldn't deserve any kind of credit.
As it is, commercial games are simply better, and pirates like to play them more.
I never said anybody can cry foul just because a legitimate product is eating up their share of the market.
It just isn't a valid argument that somebody would do something else if they couldn't pirate a game.
You are a fair customer, that the industry has lost because of it's own fault. They couldn't keep you entertained, so you have left them.
That's a stark contrast to the nerds who say "If I couldn't pirate, I'd do something else. I don't know what. Definately not play games."
LOL. Insightful? Oh please.
People who pirate videogames seem to find them more entertaining than church or librairies etc. If they want this better entertainment, they have to pay for it.
If they were to give up games, nobody would say a thing.
Doesn't give them a right to free computer games though.
They might not be entitled to it, but it comes naturally if you create material that becomes popular. They own the copyright to the material, so if it becomes popular, yes, they are entitled to profit from that demand.
Another POV is this: People say they're doing no harm by pirating, because they wouldn't buy it even if they couldn't pirate it. But what would they do with the time they spend playing? Even so, since when has anybody been entitled to free games, even if they "wouldn't buy them anyway"?
Or is my physics off base?
Completely and utterly. Basically, most energy that is used in most processes, ends up as heat. The difference being that you would use up more energy in the less efficient process for your needs, than in the more efficient one. But even the energy that goes into the desired process enentually ends up as heat.
You're example with the light bulb is the same. Say you want so many lux from a regular light bulb, you need a certain amount of energy. If you want the same light from an LED, you will need to use less energy.
But if you power an LED with the same power you power the bulb with, then it will release alot more light, but that light will heat the surfaces it hits, unless you release it off into space.
Because most applications don't release huge amounts of power as electromagnetic radiation though, the energy consumption is directly related to the heat production.
This is not an agency you can dictate to regarding their operations. It is a private organization.
Of course you can. You can require that anyone calling themselves an independant rating agency actually does the rating, and examines the media itself.
I can't call myself a doctor if all I do is listen to what a patient tells me, and don't do any examinations myself.
You're basically talking about creating a new and massive government bureacracy for one thing - to rate video games.
No, it would still be an independant agency.
This is how you want your tax dollars spent?
The ERSB isn't funded by taxes.
Because the ESRB is not going to spend this money, nor do they have to.
If they want to do their job, they will have to spend money. It might mean a higher price for publishers to get a game rated, but around $2000 for a rating should be perfectly reasonable.
needing to open Quicktime to play a video ... needs something like Nero ShowTime to play
Ah yes. The good old days. Luckily we have codec packs, and all I need anymore is Media Player Classic.