You raise an excellent point. The purpose of higher education has gotten perverted over the years. A college or university is not meant to teach you how to do a specific task but rather to give you the intellectual capability to learn new tasks. Computer Science isn't about a specific technology [or at least it shouldn't be], it's about the mathematical and scientific background to be able to adapt to new technologies.
"but also agreed to by many many people that love movies... i.e. Roger Ebert)"
Shifting your thesis, aren't you? I thought we were supposed to care about people who are knowledgeable of the craft? Wasn't that your claim? Directors, film students? Now you're saying that if people "love movies", we should listen to what they have to say on the quality of movies.
As for the rest of your diatribe, the fact that you've been reduced to vulgarity shows that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Someone's list of good movies is just as valid as anyone else's if it's a list of movies that they enjoy and are entertained by. I'm amazed at your need to both insult other people and demand that people see the world exactly like you do. I'm clearly smarter than you as I can discuss things without the need for vulgarity but I do not believe that my thoughts on some good movies are somehow "more right" than yours because what makes a movie good is entirely personal and from your own perspective.
[Although, yours could be invalid if what you claim is good is just a sad attempt to make yourself look sophisticated - which could be entirely true. I'm surprised that someone that has such an appreciation of Chaplin cannot express himself in a more intelligent manner. Perhaps you don't "get" Chaplin but have learned just enough from your sacred film critics to know that you should "get" him and you can parrot a film critic's words.]
"If you live in a cave your whole life and the only movie you're allowed to see is Deuce Bigallow Male Jiggalo part 5, you'll think it's pretty damn enjoyable, does that make it Good???"
Yes, it does. "Good" is entirely subjective. The study and critique of film is not a science and therefore, if someone enjoys a film, it is good from their perspective.
"is that to say that Titanic was a "good" movie because so many people enjoyed it?"
Isn't that the exact claim you made? Popularity equates to "goodness"? You just want to use a different sample set - film critics, etc - which, in my eyes, is a pretty poor way to go about things. Listen, you obviously like the Seven Samurai a lot. That's great. Congrats. But telling people they're uncultured and things like that if they haven't seen it or didn't care for it is just sad. It also stinks of elitism. At the end of the day, it's a goddamned movie. Get over yourself and get over your respect for film students.
"On the other hand, people today know nothing of movies or what a good movie is."
Entirely subjective and it's sad that you think this way. Enjoy what you will but don't insult others because they don't see the world in the exact same way you do. I enjoy playing Civilization. Others do not. Do I look down my nose at them and call them stupid? No, I realize that different people have different sensibilities and move on with my life. You should try the same.
And "a lot" [my, you've been so quantitative] of eastcoast stadiums have prominent ads for national companies displayed and no local companies. Point out a single local business that has advertisements at Fenway, Shea, or Yankee Stadium. You stated that local companies were the norm and that large companies might just now start to get into advertising within the stadium. My contention is that this has already happened.
So don't tell me I'm completely wrong when you overstated the case and then offered an example that doesn't even come close to proving your original sentiment.
"I think the best example of cramming advertising down user's throats and avoiding the PVR problems is with sporting events. By nature, they're not susceptible to the problems of PVR since most viewers would prefer to watch them live instead of delayed, although the product placement in the stadiums is fantastic. With all of the billboards and the camera panning around during downtime, a lot of local businesses get their name out there. It will be interesting to see if a shift to product placement ousts these local businesses and we see more national companies bidding the price up on stadium billboards."
Was the last time you watched one of these sporting events in the 1950s? The only stadiums where a local business might have a billboard are the ones for minor leagues and those games aren't broadcast very often. NFL and MLB stadiums and fields are solely the realm of multi-national beer companies. Have you heard or Busch Stadium or Coors Field?
Are you trying to convince us that the PSP isn't a failure or yourself? Because I know that if I dropped $250 on a product, I'd be in denial about the impending demise of the system as well.
"I also don't agree with that statement. Might of been four years ago. But not now."
So it was true four years ago. You concede this. Let's see some statistics to back up your claim of a change. Since you already acknowledge that it was the standard, it is your requirement to show proof that that has changed.
" Prove they are losing money to homebrew. You can't, and neither can Sony."
I never have claimed that they were. The point is that the decision makers don't have to prove the status quo is working in business. You have to prove that a change would bring better results. Your call for me to prove the above shows that you both don't understand my statements [since I never made such a claim and asking me to prove it shows you haven't understood that I haven't made such a claim] and you don't understand how business works. See my previous comments and try to absorb them.
Again, you can't prove any of the above. This is what I was getting at originally. Sony execs see the status quo [as I described in my previous post] as protecting their developers from competition. Thus, to change that policy, execs would demand some type of verifiable proof that the benefits outweight the costs. Thus, the problem with your reply is that all of this is simple conjecture without any hard proof to back it up. You would need statistics and expected impact and, even then, it's still not probable that someone would be willing to put their neck on the line so you can run homebrew applications on the PSP. For many in the corporate world, it is better to fail in a conventional method than to take a chance on an unproven one.
"They're spending money trying to combat the homebrew market (and region-free "piracy" or whatnot), which is costing them dollars to do, when they could just turn a blind eye to the "problem", they can save money and concentrate on making some decent titles for the thing."
They're protecting the developers who pay licensing fees to them from competition from developers who do not pay licensing fees to them. Furthermore, this is standard practice and has been for quite some time within the industry.
"allowing people to play little homebrew games on their PSP would increase its value to potential buyers."
Prove it in a way that is verifiable and can be directly traced to the bottom line. Because that's what someone at Sony would have to do. It's easy to whine on Slashdot, a lot harder to get something done in the real world.
"Allowing homebrew to run will not kill them, as what I am proposing would not allow dumped UMD images to run, only people's own code."
No, it wouldn't "kill" Sony. [Why are we using language like that to discuss this matter anyway?] Allowing homebrew software to run unsigned would add competition to the marketplace, which is something that developers for the PSP would not appreciate. Sony doesn't want homebrew games being released to keep developers happy and because it generates no income for them.
No, it is not. His claim was that Nintendo is no longer the innovator it once was. He then listed two "innovations" that were not only not innovations but also had already been released before the sources he cites. Perhaps you should reread the post I was responding to?
"(who tend to stick with their design decisions, even when they've been shown to be mistakes *cough* N64 Cartridges *cough*)"
How did Nintendo stick to their design decisions? Assuming that the N64 should have used CD-based games and that was a mistake, it was only shown by the success of the Playstation. The Gamecube [perhaps you don't know this] does not use cartridges. How did they stick to a design after said design was "shown to be a mistake" again?
"If you want to ban GTA:SA for the violence, drugs, and language that's fine by me."
Why exactly is that fine with you? Banning a game for its content, regardless of what that content is, is bad for the rights of the citizens to freely express themselves. Let Rockstar peddle what they want [and make sure it is properly labelled by some sort of organization that is not affiliated with the government] and have the market sort it out.
It's a little disturbing that you're in favor of banning games.
Slashdot Mirror
I blame ITT Tech.
As for the rest of your diatribe, the fact that you've been reduced to vulgarity shows that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Someone's list of good movies is just as valid as anyone else's if it's a list of movies that they enjoy and are entertained by. I'm amazed at your need to both insult other people and demand that people see the world exactly like you do. I'm clearly smarter than you as I can discuss things without the need for vulgarity but I do not believe that my thoughts on some good movies are somehow "more right" than yours because what makes a movie good is entirely personal and from your own perspective.
[Although, yours could be invalid if what you claim is good is just a sad attempt to make yourself look sophisticated - which could be entirely true. I'm surprised that someone that has such an appreciation of Chaplin cannot express himself in a more intelligent manner. Perhaps you don't "get" Chaplin but have learned just enough from your sacred film critics to know that you should "get" him and you can parrot a film critic's words.]
Any other questions?
I wonder which is more convincing? Ever think that Malda lied to you?
This is a paid advertisement posing as a legitimate Slashdot article. And the silence from Rob Malda continues...
Someone should beat you with a clue stick.
Fantastic spelling. I almost cared to respond with some information to enlighten you regarding your misunderstanding.
So don't tell me I'm completely wrong when you overstated the case and then offered an example that doesn't even come close to proving your original sentiment.
Are you trying to convince us that the PSP isn't a failure or yourself? Because I know that if I dropped $250 on a product, I'd be in denial about the impending demise of the system as well.
Again, you can't prove any of the above. This is what I was getting at originally. Sony execs see the status quo [as I described in my previous post] as protecting their developers from competition. Thus, to change that policy, execs would demand some type of verifiable proof that the benefits outweight the costs. Thus, the problem with your reply is that all of this is simple conjecture without any hard proof to back it up. You would need statistics and expected impact and, even then, it's still not probable that someone would be willing to put their neck on the line so you can run homebrew applications on the PSP. For many in the corporate world, it is better to fail in a conventional method than to take a chance on an unproven one.
There's no difference between "available on the Internet" and "publish."
Why does he have such a large stock if he can sell them so easily?
I guess you've forgotten the Nintendo Power Pad.
Wow - such broad generalizations and such oversimplification of issues. Your thoughts are really worthwhile.
It's a little disturbing that you're in favor of banning games.