Given how the Xbox sold so poorly in Japan, I'm not surprised that the Xbox 360 is expected to. To get an idea of just how much the Japanese seem to dislike the Xbox take a look at this article from GameSpot about sales in Japan for various games/consoles.
The Xbox sales for the first half of this year are 9,000 some units. Well that's to be expected from old hardware right? Wrong, the PS2 sold over one million units in the same time frame, and it's older than the Xbox. Additionally the top selling Xbox game in the period was Fable, selling 12,000 units. A re-released PS game sold more copies than it.
I'm not sure what it is about Japanese consumers that turns them away from the Xbox. Maybe it's the fact that both Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies whereas Microsoft is from the US. Even with games like FFXI slated to come out for the Xbox 360, I don't think it's going to do much for it in the Japanese market. I firmly believe it will be #1 in America, but in Japan it might as well not even try.
1) School should last longer. As it currently stands, we're trying to cram so many different subjects in that we don't have enough time. An extra hour of school isn't really going to hurt anyone. In fact school should probably be a 9 - 5 with an hour break. This means kids will be in school while their parents are at work for the most part. This helps solve a lot of other problems. Additionally, the school year should run longer as well.
2) Focus heavily on math and English from an early age. In high school there were a lot of people who were unable to handle basic algebra or still butchered the English language. Don't allow the children to use calculators or computers as this just encourages them to be lazy when it comes to math and grammar.
3) Start teaching them a foreign language in grade school. It seems like a majority of the world is bilingual or better, while a majority of children in the United States only speak English (and generally poorly at that). Personally, I'd suggest Spanish as it's becoming more widely used in parts of the United States. Spanish can easily be transitioned to other languages like French, Italian, etc. later if that person would rather learn a different language. And don't just teach them words either! Teach them how the language workds and give them a better understanding of the mechanics.
4) Don't be afraid to fail or promote a student. When I was young I went to a really small grade school for a while. I was really good with math and went through the second and third grade maths in one year. On the flip side, some students will struggle with certain subjects (me I suck at spelling) and need to be held back. Everything can be more flexible if grade schools would have a specialized teacher for each subject rather than having a teacher for each grade.
5) Discipline, discipline, discipline. I have thought about getting an education degree a few times, but I absolutely refuse to teach elementary education. My girlfriend's mother teaches third grade and tells me all kinds of horror stories about what the children can do. My parents would tell me stories about how they would be paddled in school if they misbehaved. I don't know if it would be such a good idea to reinstate something like that, but children lack discipline. They get in trouble in school and at worst sit in an office for a while. It's especially bad if the parents don't care or do anything. If you can't paddle them, ten hours of detention instead of one hour might help get the message across a little better.
6) Encourage education. Right now, it seems that there is more focus on athletics in high school than on educational things. My old highschool just raised over $100,000 to put lights on the football field, so we can have one home night game a year, and a new floor on the basketball court. Our 9-12 enrollment is probably around 100 students. We have to co-op with another town for a 9-man football team if that tells you anything. Just think what that money could have done if it had been spent on things like drama, speech, music, and other programs that are often ignored in favor of the sports teams.
7) Just because I don't think money should be spent on sports teams doesn't mean I don't think physical education is important. Obesity is becoming a serious problem in this country. In addition to serving more nutritious food (or at least not so much junk food), the kids should get in a good work out at school. Overweight kids should not be told it's "ok" or have excuses made. They should get into shape. Maybe 40 laps around the gym every morning would get rid of all that energy some of them seem to have.
8) Increase the requirements for a person to graduate. To me it seems pathetic that someone can graduate with the poor English, math, and general skills that they can today. I know a few people who graduated from my school that spent a lot of their senior year taking shop classes. Let's all quit pretending that school is/was difficult and expect a little more from t
I think that while the punishment was lacking, consumers should really be more aware and make more intelligent decisions.
It's your fault if you know that Windows is the mostly commonly targeted OS for virus attacks, spyware, etc. but decide to use it anyway without caring about protection.
It's even more your fault if there are patches and security fixes available from Microsoft before or shortly after an outburst, but you decide not to download them.
It's your fault for opening that email because the subject happened to be something about XXX pics of some celebrity. It's your fault for downloading some.exe file some randome person says is a program they'd like you to test.
It's your fault for browsing seedy sites that are likely just trying to get some type of spyware onto your computer. It's also your fault for using a browser that can be exploited if you know a better alternative is out there.
I realize that a majority of the people here understand computer security to an extent that they can keep themselves free of viruses and spyware by choosing alternative operating systems, keeping anti-virus/spyware software up to date, not opening emails that look suspicious, not browsering porn sites that are throwing all kinds of garbage at you, and any other number of things (firewall) that can keep a computer safe. However, there are a lot of idiots out there who really shouldn't be using a computer because they don't understand some of the basic safety information above.
I could go to a random construction company and ask if I could use some of their heavy machinary. Odds are they won't let me because I don't understand how to opporate the equipment in a safe fashion. If I got behind the controls of a huge crane, I would probably cause a lot of damage. The same thing applies to people who sit behind a computer without knowing some basic safety information. I'm not asking that everyone be a Linux guru or know every single thing about computers, but at least they should know how to keep their computer from getting infected and causing damage by infecting others.
A lot of people like to put the blame on Microsoft for making a seriously insecure OS, and to a certain extent they have a point. There are a lot of "features" in Windows OS's that make them vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. People shouldn't need to have a firewall, multiple anti-virus programs, and a host of spyware catchers just to maintain a basic level of security, but they should take the time to make their systems as secure as they can and avoid habits that generally lead to spreading viruses and infecting their computer with spyware.
Personally, I think that consoles games peaked in terms of length around the 16-bit SNES and 32-bit PS era. Despite that fact that companies like Square started ramping up the graphics in their RPGs, they still managed to be somewhat lengthy.
After this it seems like a lot of games have chosen to focus more on improving the graphics before adding more game. I suspect that this trend will continue to increase in certain regards with the next generation consoles. Developement costs are expected to increase, meaning that more things will have to be cut to stay within the budget. Higher resulotion also takes up more space on game discs, reducing the overall amount of content a company can include in a game.
However technology like Sony's Blu-Ray allow for a lot more content to be put in a game. If the next Grand Theft Auto game uses this space to its fullest we could easilly see a 300 hour epic in the making. However, on the whole, games seem to have gotten shorter. Every now and again you'll find a 10 hour game that seemed like it had the right amount of content, but usually people are just left wanting more.
I wonder if this is such a big deal over in Europe where the attitudes towards sexual content are much more relaxed.
I do recall hearing that when GTA 3 was released, the German version had certain "violent" features removed (I think it was the ability to kick or ground stomp NPCs that had been nocked down).
Europe and America seem to be a lot different when it comes to violent/sexual content in games. The point you make in your post really does seem to exemplify the American view on the subject though. Violence is okay. Show someone getting their head cut off in a live execution at 8 in the morning on Saturdays. Show just one nipple though and it's the end of the world.
However, it now appears that Microsoft may be crazy like a fox. This week, evidence surfaced confirming that the company is indeed developing games for the DS.
One word: No. Microsoft is not crazy. Considering that Microsoft is not in the handheld business producing games on a handheld system of a competitor does not hurt them any. This only can add a little bit of profit for them if the game does well.
Additionally, Microsoft gets to choose which handheld they want to support. Since Microsoft seems to be gearing up for a direct confrontation between the Xbox 360 and the PS3, they obviously do not want to support Sony. Since Nintendo has a lower market share in the console division, Microsoft wouldn't feel as threatened by them.
Also, Rare developed a fair share of games for the Nintendo 64. While not all of these were the IP of Rare, I could easilly see a few DS rehashes of Conker's bad fur day and Perfect Dark on the DS. They've still got the code for the 64 versions of those games and a little bit of reworking could get them two games that are likely to do well. Considering their recent dry spell and their lack of any other exciting titles coming out (the next Perfect Dark doesn't look very good at the moment) they need to put something out the door to make some money.
I think this works out well for everyone involved. Rare gets to produce some games that have the potential to sell well. Nintendo gets some games that might sell more DS systems. Gamers get some more games that have the potential to be worth buying.
You'll probably be able to get the phone for a relatively low cost. Most mobile phones are sold for a loss by cellular companies so that they can get people to sign a service contract that more than makes up for the loss they will take from the phone.
I could easily see one of these phones with 100 song capacity selling for as low as $150. You'll be selling your soul and signing a 2 year service agreement though.
My Dad got a phone for $80 with a plan. After he accidentally ran over it about a year later, it would have cost him over $300 to buy a replacement phone that was either the same model or similar to the one he had.
One of these phones probably won't cost much more than an iPod with similar storage capacity.
They create a mobile iTunes software that can work with the phones for just about any manufacturer and try to get some contracts with Verizon, Cellular One, and the other big companies.
Starting their own company gives them more control, but they also have all these other big companies that are going to try to run them out of business. However, if Apple sticks to its $.99 per song and allows people to use a full song for a ringtone rather than selling crappy midi files for $2.50 that play 10 bars of some obscure part of the song, they might put a dent in the other company.
I understand that Apple is trying to expand and stay one step ahead of the competition (especially with Microsoft wanting to get in on the market), but it seems like Apple is starting to wander out of its realm a little bit, which makes me think of another company that tries to do everything and usually ends up with a subpar product that is beaten by a company that focuses on that area.
Then again, if the other big phone companies aren't willing to play ball (which they probably aren't. Would you want to stop charging ridiculous amounts for a ringtone?) what choice does Apple have other than this one?
Hopefully they'll make a product that's fair to the consumer. Basically, I'd want good coverage, the ability to upload songs I've already purchased, and the same $.99 to purchase a song on my phone. Capacity for 100+ songs would be nice as well. Price doesn't matter since you can give it away for a lot less than it costs when you make someone sign a service plan for a few years.
If it met those conditions, I might consider getting one.
No matter which side comes out on top, the lawyers still get paid. (Unless the accept payment only with a favorable verdict, but they might be company lawyers.)
These numbers were taken from a table in the article. Interestingly enough, the cost if something does break favors Linux as well. From the same table we get that the mainframe solution consists of 4 IBM mainframes, whereas Linux and Unix solutions require around 144 servers for Linux and 100 - 120 servers for Unix. If the hardware goes to hell it's so much easier to replace the single bad part than a mainframe.
Hopefully, more people will begin a transition to open source solutions when they realize it can be successful.
Look at the page in question. You honestly want to tell me that the same person who designed a sophisticated piece of software like BitTorrent would make such a crappy page like that?
Anything on the internet should really be taken with a grain of salt. Further proof that you should be careful what you say on the internet because it will probably come around to bite you in the ass someday. It kind of reminds me of the people who jokingly talk about blowing schools up. They're not serious, but at some point they have to be taken seriously.
I don't have a problem with them looking for planets if they really want to. Just don't take up government funding and grant money that could be going elsewhere. It follows from the capitalist society that we live in that if a product or service is useful it will be able to make money on its own.
Space flight once needed funding from the government to get kick started, but there are a lot of people in the private sector getting in on the action. Hopefully, NASA or other companies involved with space flight/exploration will be able to sustain themselves based on the fact that they provide a product or service society thinks is worth paying for.
Programmers are generally doing something useful though, so using them is a little off. Even though some people would argue that Microsoft programmers are useless or should be doing something better with their time, society is buying Microsoft products which justify what they are doing. They can stand on their own, so either what they do is of value or society is stupid.
The line gets blurred more when you deal with things like video games. To some they are considered an art form. They're not really adding anything practical, but they add to the culture of society. You could attempt to pass them off as a form of entertainment if nothing else. True, they could better apply their time and effort to doing something more useful for society, but once again people are willing to pay for the product. Human beings will always want to consume some form of entertainment, so it a certain sense it's somewhat vital to have people providing that entertainment. If it's not good entertainment, people won't buy it and it will disappear.
To get this back on track, what these scientists are doing is science purely for the sake of science at this time. This is similar to mathmeticians who prove theorems that aren't of any real practical use. Because this knowledge generally can't be applied to much practical use, it isn't very profitable. At some point in time it might be, but right now it isn't and doesn't serve much of a function to enhance society.
If these people were looking at the moon and wondering if we could grow crops on it, then I'd be all for having money being given to their research because it has potential practical benefits to society. I know there are a lot of people out there who love these non-practical forms of science, but I'd prefer something useful comes out of what is being studied because it will become self-supportive, potentially becoming of use to me or at least not costing me any money to keep the project running.
But the Chinese authorities are less in love with the net. The government regularly tries to block access to material it considers pornographic or politically subversive.
There goes about 80% or more of internet content.
It sounds like the Chinese are pretty much limited to looking at propaganda sites and maybe a few for online businesses, and other sites run from within China.
RTFA, maybe even just read the entire post, and you'll find that there is no mention of this having anything to do with planets we'll be able to "live on," or colonizing, or space travel, or anything like that.
Exactly! Do we really need to know the inner workings of a planet and how they form when there are bigger things to worry about? I'm just saying that this branch of science may be useful one day, but there are bigger problems to deal with in the area of space immediately surrounding us and on the planet we still live on. Last time I checked there are a lot of people dying from cancer, AIDS, warfare, and other problems we've got. Don't you think the brilliant minds looking for planets could be better put to use solving the more serious problems we're facing now?
I read enough of TFA to realize that it wasn't really worth finishing. There wouldn't be any useful information I could apply to my life, just some trivial information about this particular planet and some ideas scientists have about planetary formation. I fail to see how this information can in any way be applied to make the world a better place at the current time.
This information may prove useful at some point in time and perhaps it will be of great benefit to humanity. However, this will be long after I'm dead and gone.
Go ahead and flame me if you want. Mod me insightful, a troll, or redundent, but I'm just voicing my opinion on the matter.
We live in a universe larger than I can even begin to comprehend. The size of it is something that most people have no possible way to relate to. In this huge universe there are more stars than I can even begin to imagine, because there're just so many of them. Some of these stars happen to have planets orbiting around them. There's a lot of bloody planets out there too. Why in the hell should I be excited about this one?
Until you can come back and tell me that you've found a planet that is similar enough to Earth that we will be able to live on it, or we've found a planet made entirely of valuable metals and minerals that will vastly improve life, why keep releasing the same unimpressive information.
I don't want to rag on the people who are actually interested and excited by this, but considering how large the universe is, there are probably hundreds of other planets out there similar to this one.
Additionally, there is also the problem that a lot of these planets and other things we see out in space are quite far away. A lot of the stuff we see in space might have actually happened before we were born. It just takes it that damned long for it to be visible to us. Add in the fact that even if we do find another planet incredibly like earth, we really don't have any current reliable means to get there.
So let's get to work on figuring out how to get around in space faster before we bother looking for things that might be worth getting to. Let's get some people actually living on the moon or possibly another planet like Mars before we start bothering with anything outside our immediate proximity.
Copyright can protect the consumers by guaranteeing that after a certain amount of time copyright materials are released into the public domain.
Imagine for a minute that some company creates a drug that can cure cancer, AIDS, and a number of other diseases that we can't cure today. The company could choose not to patent this cure in the hopes that no one would be able to discover how it works. If no one could ever figure it out, they could continue to charge whatever they wanted for it, and people would have no choice but to pay or to likely die from their illness.
However, the company can patent it and protect their rights to it for a certain amount of time. If it were 14 years, they would have the sole right to create or allow other people to create the drug. After those 14 years, anyone could freely create the drug. So initially, prices would be high, but after 14 years they would probably hit rock bottom when other companies can undercut the price and get in on the action.
Now which would you rather have, knowledge controled and exploited by the few for as long as it takes someone else to learn that knowledge, or a set amount of time for whoever made the discovery to profit from it before it becomes available for free to everyone.
A patent system allows a winning situation for everyone. Without one, many people wouldn't want to spend time researching a discovery if everyone else will be able to steal it and profit from their hard work. Essentially, the patent system allows for capitalism to work well, provided the patent system isn't screwed up horribly.
I could buy a PC that ends up being more compatible with Xbox games than an Xbox 360 might be? That's just kind of pathetic really.
To me this just seems like a grab at some media attention. Heaven forbid that everyone stops talking about company Z for a few minutes. Perhaps they're just throwing it out there to see how Sony and Nintendo react to the proposition.
If they do, do this it's win-win for Microsoft all the way. First they get money when anyone wants to add Xbox functionality to whatever device they want. Then they get money whenever anyone buys an Xbox game to play on that piece of hardware. They don't have to worry about anything but counting all the money that rolls in.
Since Microsoft has poured a lot of money into the Xbox 360, they really need to make it succeed. They can't go on having the Xbox lose money all the time. This means they can't really spent much effort with their current generation machine once it launches. Since it runs on and Intel chip, which a lot of PCs use anyway, it shouldn't be hard to create an Xbox Virtual Machine or have someone else buy the rights to create one to run on some other type of hardware. Microsoft has just found a way to continue expanding the Xbox platform without having to do any work. Even if it's a failure, it doesn't hurt Microsoft as much because they're not directly involved.
I have to agree with the article, when it comes to Windows gaming. Windows is the platform to have in gaming
The only reason Windows is the platform for gaming is because they have over a 90% market share when it comes to PCs. Does it make more sense to try and develope a game that targets that other percentage which is broken up into various forms of Linux, something from Apple, or some other OS?
Given the generally shoddy products that Microsoft has released over the years (IE, Windows ME, etc.) I sometimes have to wonder if another platform were more dominent would we see even better developement opportunities than what DirectX offers?
A majority of the statements that Chris Donahue makes are just filler that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
"DirectX started off as an underground project, with a bunch of guys hijacking resources, both money and people, and building a set of tools to make it easier to make games for Windows because they knew that Windows was going to be a great platform for games."
Or they knew that Windows would be about the only platform left.
"The flexibility and power of Windows as a development platform (as well as the mouse and keyboard being the best interface for these types of games) has been a key reason for the strength of online gaming on Windows--that's part of the reason that InStat says there are 20 times more gamers online using Windows than all the consoles combined."
Of course, considering that console makers really don't push their product into areas like Korea and don't have MMORPGs like EQ and WoW. Look at the millions of people in Korea who play Lineage and the millions who play World of Warcraft, EverQuest, and other MMOs. Additionally a lot of people play RTS and FPS games online as well. Consoles might have some of these, but not as many as the PC can offer. This statement is at best an interesting fact, but doesn't really say anything special.
"Windows gaming is kind of the Energizer bunny of gaming platforms--it just keeps going and going. And it keeps on innovating. Windows is where new and innovative technology happens first, and it's where new and exciting game genres show up first."
I already had a go at this comment in another post. Go find it if you really want to hear me rant more.
There are some interesting bits of information in the article, but there's a lot of pointless comments that don't belong there or just talk about making things better or easier. I wish people would stop dancing around the question and give us some real meat. If they can't provide us with some specifics, don't bother giving the interview to tell us stuff that's blatantly obvious.
Windows gaming is kind of the Energizer bunny of gaming platforms--it just keeps going and going. And it keeps on innovating. Windows is where new and innovative technology happens first, and it's where new and exciting game genres show up first.
Are all Microsoft employees required to incessantly spout the same crap over and over again. Microsoft has made some good products, but that last thing I want to hear over and over again is the same BS line about how Microsoft keeps innovating. I can't even look out the window anymore without some Microsoft goon shovel feeding me the same line about inovation.
Honestly, I can never really recall any great innovative product ever really being made by microsoft. I know that they've made some good products, but it seems to me that they've all been done before.
OS software was around long before Microsoft ever stuck its foot in the door. Internet browsers were around before IE came around. Text editors, spreadsheets, and other Office software had been developed before Microsoft made their versions. Gaming consoles and video games had been around a lot longer as well.
Windows and IE aren't the best products in the world, but I'm quite happy with Word and my Xbox. I just wish they'd stop thinking I was born yesterday and will believe that they're revolutionizing the world with every single thing they do. It's almost gotten to the point where someone craps in a box and starts heralding it as the next big thing.
If Microsoft wouldn't hype their stuff up so much, maybe some folks wouldn't be so let down when it doesn't live up to all the promises.
With the brilliant Innovation (TM) that Microsoft is always bringing to the computer world, why should we have to worry about anything.
More seriously, by the time Longhorn actually gets released, the world might have passed RSS by. Either that or there will be several third party applications that will do something similar to what Microsoft hopes to do that will have already been released for XP.
Additionally, even if Microsoft does make an application that is buggy as all hell and hands every virus on the web free access to your machine, you don't have to use it. Unless, of course, Microsoft is tricky and builds it into IE. Even then you don't have to use IE.
So what if people are speculating about how bad this software will be and how insecure it could potentially be. If you don't use any of it, you really don't have to worry about it.
It is normal for game companies to take a loss on hardware whenever a new console launches, since they typically focus on acquiring market share rather than generating a profit during the first year. During the second year and afterward, they can recover the losses with the savings that come from mass production and with licensing fees from publishers.
Nintendo will probably launch the Revolution somewhere between $200 and $300 and still manage to make a profit on every console they sell. A while back there was an excellent article on/. that explained how Nintendo's business model was different from Sony and Microsft, and that even though they came in third place against the Xbox and PS3, they were still the most profitable.
For Sony to release a console after Microsoft and for a higher price could cause problems for them like the article stated. Microsoft has deep enough pockets to launch the console at around $350 when it comes out and cut it down to $300 when the PS3 launches. They'd be taking some huge hits in the pocketbook, but it would probably get more people to buy Xbox 360's.
However, as illustrated with the PSP, some people will buy something no matter how much it costs just because they want it. Sony is really going to need to count on its fan base to help out a lot.
Since then, Apple has dropped the Moterola processors, has improved the amount of RAM greatly, has gone to bigger screens, technically gone from not being IBM compatible to partially made by IBM, and a great many other things.
However, it still has the same one button mouse as always. Some things never change.
I've been hearing on the radio and in different places that the video game industry is poised to take over the motion picture industry in terms of revenue generated.
From the article:
Just last week, analysts at PricewaterhouseCoopers projected the worldwide game industry revenue (revenues from hardware, software, and peripherals) to increase from $25.4 billion in 2004 to $54.6 billion in 2009
According to This site the movie industry pulled in $44.8 billion worldwide for 2004. I don't see the motion picture industry growing as much as the video game industry, so it's quite possible that we could see video games overtake movies before the decade is out.
Slashdot Mirror
The Xbox sales for the first half of this year are 9,000 some units. Well that's to be expected from old hardware right? Wrong, the PS2 sold over one million units in the same time frame, and it's older than the Xbox. Additionally the top selling Xbox game in the period was Fable, selling 12,000 units. A re-released PS game sold more copies than it.
I'm not sure what it is about Japanese consumers that turns them away from the Xbox. Maybe it's the fact that both Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies whereas Microsoft is from the US. Even with games like FFXI slated to come out for the Xbox 360, I don't think it's going to do much for it in the Japanese market. I firmly believe it will be #1 in America, but in Japan it might as well not even try.
2) Focus heavily on math and English from an early age. In high school there were a lot of people who were unable to handle basic algebra or still butchered the English language. Don't allow the children to use calculators or computers as this just encourages them to be lazy when it comes to math and grammar.
3) Start teaching them a foreign language in grade school. It seems like a majority of the world is bilingual or better, while a majority of children in the United States only speak English (and generally poorly at that). Personally, I'd suggest Spanish as it's becoming more widely used in parts of the United States. Spanish can easily be transitioned to other languages like French, Italian, etc. later if that person would rather learn a different language. And don't just teach them words either! Teach them how the language workds and give them a better understanding of the mechanics.
4) Don't be afraid to fail or promote a student. When I was young I went to a really small grade school for a while. I was really good with math and went through the second and third grade maths in one year. On the flip side, some students will struggle with certain subjects (me I suck at spelling) and need to be held back. Everything can be more flexible if grade schools would have a specialized teacher for each subject rather than having a teacher for each grade.
5) Discipline, discipline, discipline. I have thought about getting an education degree a few times, but I absolutely refuse to teach elementary education. My girlfriend's mother teaches third grade and tells me all kinds of horror stories about what the children can do. My parents would tell me stories about how they would be paddled in school if they misbehaved. I don't know if it would be such a good idea to reinstate something like that, but children lack discipline. They get in trouble in school and at worst sit in an office for a while. It's especially bad if the parents don't care or do anything. If you can't paddle them, ten hours of detention instead of one hour might help get the message across a little better.
6) Encourage education. Right now, it seems that there is more focus on athletics in high school than on educational things. My old highschool just raised over $100,000 to put lights on the football field, so we can have one home night game a year, and a new floor on the basketball court. Our 9-12 enrollment is probably around 100 students. We have to co-op with another town for a 9-man football team if that tells you anything. Just think what that money could have done if it had been spent on things like drama, speech, music, and other programs that are often ignored in favor of the sports teams.
7) Just because I don't think money should be spent on sports teams doesn't mean I don't think physical education is important. Obesity is becoming a serious problem in this country. In addition to serving more nutritious food (or at least not so much junk food), the kids should get in a good work out at school. Overweight kids should not be told it's "ok" or have excuses made. They should get into shape. Maybe 40 laps around the gym every morning would get rid of all that energy some of them seem to have.
8) Increase the requirements for a person to graduate. To me it seems pathetic that someone can graduate with the poor English, math, and general skills that they can today. I know a few people who graduated from my school that spent a lot of their senior year taking shop classes. Let's all quit pretending that school is/was difficult and expect a little more from t
It's your fault if you know that Windows is the mostly commonly targeted OS for virus attacks, spyware, etc. but decide to use it anyway without caring about protection.
It's even more your fault if there are patches and security fixes available from Microsoft before or shortly after an outburst, but you decide not to download them.
It's your fault for opening that email because the subject happened to be something about XXX pics of some celebrity. It's your fault for downloading some .exe file some randome person says is a program they'd like you to test.
It's your fault for browsing seedy sites that are likely just trying to get some type of spyware onto your computer. It's also your fault for using a browser that can be exploited if you know a better alternative is out there.
I realize that a majority of the people here understand computer security to an extent that they can keep themselves free of viruses and spyware by choosing alternative operating systems, keeping anti-virus/spyware software up to date, not opening emails that look suspicious, not browsering porn sites that are throwing all kinds of garbage at you, and any other number of things (firewall) that can keep a computer safe. However, there are a lot of idiots out there who really shouldn't be using a computer because they don't understand some of the basic safety information above.
I could go to a random construction company and ask if I could use some of their heavy machinary. Odds are they won't let me because I don't understand how to opporate the equipment in a safe fashion. If I got behind the controls of a huge crane, I would probably cause a lot of damage. The same thing applies to people who sit behind a computer without knowing some basic safety information. I'm not asking that everyone be a Linux guru or know every single thing about computers, but at least they should know how to keep their computer from getting infected and causing damage by infecting others.
A lot of people like to put the blame on Microsoft for making a seriously insecure OS, and to a certain extent they have a point. There are a lot of "features" in Windows OS's that make them vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. People shouldn't need to have a firewall, multiple anti-virus programs, and a host of spyware catchers just to maintain a basic level of security, but they should take the time to make their systems as secure as they can and avoid habits that generally lead to spreading viruses and infecting their computer with spyware.
After this it seems like a lot of games have chosen to focus more on improving the graphics before adding more game. I suspect that this trend will continue to increase in certain regards with the next generation consoles. Developement costs are expected to increase, meaning that more things will have to be cut to stay within the budget. Higher resulotion also takes up more space on game discs, reducing the overall amount of content a company can include in a game.
However technology like Sony's Blu-Ray allow for a lot more content to be put in a game. If the next Grand Theft Auto game uses this space to its fullest we could easilly see a 300 hour epic in the making. However, on the whole, games seem to have gotten shorter. Every now and again you'll find a 10 hour game that seemed like it had the right amount of content, but usually people are just left wanting more.
I do recall hearing that when GTA 3 was released, the German version had certain "violent" features removed (I think it was the ability to kick or ground stomp NPCs that had been nocked down).
Europe and America seem to be a lot different when it comes to violent/sexual content in games. The point you make in your post really does seem to exemplify the American view on the subject though. Violence is okay. Show someone getting their head cut off in a live execution at 8 in the morning on Saturdays. Show just one nipple though and it's the end of the world.
However, it now appears that Microsoft may be crazy like a fox. This week, evidence surfaced confirming that the company is indeed developing games for the DS.
One word: No. Microsoft is not crazy. Considering that Microsoft is not in the handheld business producing games on a handheld system of a competitor does not hurt them any. This only can add a little bit of profit for them if the game does well.
Additionally, Microsoft gets to choose which handheld they want to support. Since Microsoft seems to be gearing up for a direct confrontation between the Xbox 360 and the PS3, they obviously do not want to support Sony. Since Nintendo has a lower market share in the console division, Microsoft wouldn't feel as threatened by them.
Also, Rare developed a fair share of games for the Nintendo 64. While not all of these were the IP of Rare, I could easilly see a few DS rehashes of Conker's bad fur day and Perfect Dark on the DS. They've still got the code for the 64 versions of those games and a little bit of reworking could get them two games that are likely to do well. Considering their recent dry spell and their lack of any other exciting titles coming out (the next Perfect Dark doesn't look very good at the moment) they need to put something out the door to make some money.
I think this works out well for everyone involved. Rare gets to produce some games that have the potential to sell well. Nintendo gets some games that might sell more DS systems. Gamers get some more games that have the potential to be worth buying.
I could easily see one of these phones with 100 song capacity selling for as low as $150. You'll be selling your soul and signing a 2 year service agreement though.
My Dad got a phone for $80 with a plan. After he accidentally ran over it about a year later, it would have cost him over $300 to buy a replacement phone that was either the same model or similar to the one he had.
One of these phones probably won't cost much more than an iPod with similar storage capacity.
Starting their own company gives them more control, but they also have all these other big companies that are going to try to run them out of business. However, if Apple sticks to its $.99 per song and allows people to use a full song for a ringtone rather than selling crappy midi files for $2.50 that play 10 bars of some obscure part of the song, they might put a dent in the other company.
I understand that Apple is trying to expand and stay one step ahead of the competition (especially with Microsoft wanting to get in on the market), but it seems like Apple is starting to wander out of its realm a little bit, which makes me think of another company that tries to do everything and usually ends up with a subpar product that is beaten by a company that focuses on that area.
Then again, if the other big phone companies aren't willing to play ball (which they probably aren't. Would you want to stop charging ridiculous amounts for a ringtone?) what choice does Apple have other than this one?
Hopefully they'll make a product that's fair to the consumer. Basically, I'd want good coverage, the ability to upload songs I've already purchased, and the same $.99 to purchase a song on my phone. Capacity for 100+ songs would be nice as well. Price doesn't matter since you can give it away for a lot less than it costs when you make someone sign a service plan for a few years.
If it met those conditions, I might consider getting one.
Pretty nifty idea though.
No matter which side comes out on top, the lawyers still get paid. (Unless the accept payment only with a favorable verdict, but they might be company lawyers.)
Unix: $25 million
Linux: $2.5 million
These numbers were taken from a table in the article. Interestingly enough, the cost if something does break favors Linux as well. From the same table we get that the mainframe solution consists of 4 IBM mainframes, whereas Linux and Unix solutions require around 144 servers for Linux and 100 - 120 servers for Unix. If the hardware goes to hell it's so much easier to replace the single bad part than a mainframe.
Hopefully, more people will begin a transition to open source solutions when they realize it can be successful.
Anything on the internet should really be taken with a grain of salt. Further proof that you should be careful what you say on the internet because it will probably come around to bite you in the ass someday. It kind of reminds me of the people who jokingly talk about blowing schools up. They're not serious, but at some point they have to be taken seriously.
Space flight once needed funding from the government to get kick started, but there are a lot of people in the private sector getting in on the action. Hopefully, NASA or other companies involved with space flight/exploration will be able to sustain themselves based on the fact that they provide a product or service society thinks is worth paying for.
Programmers are generally doing something useful though, so using them is a little off. Even though some people would argue that Microsoft programmers are useless or should be doing something better with their time, society is buying Microsoft products which justify what they are doing. They can stand on their own, so either what they do is of value or society is stupid.
The line gets blurred more when you deal with things like video games. To some they are considered an art form. They're not really adding anything practical, but they add to the culture of society. You could attempt to pass them off as a form of entertainment if nothing else. True, they could better apply their time and effort to doing something more useful for society, but once again people are willing to pay for the product. Human beings will always want to consume some form of entertainment, so it a certain sense it's somewhat vital to have people providing that entertainment. If it's not good entertainment, people won't buy it and it will disappear.
To get this back on track, what these scientists are doing is science purely for the sake of science at this time. This is similar to mathmeticians who prove theorems that aren't of any real practical use. Because this knowledge generally can't be applied to much practical use, it isn't very profitable. At some point in time it might be, but right now it isn't and doesn't serve much of a function to enhance society.
If these people were looking at the moon and wondering if we could grow crops on it, then I'd be all for having money being given to their research because it has potential practical benefits to society. I know there are a lot of people out there who love these non-practical forms of science, but I'd prefer something useful comes out of what is being studied because it will become self-supportive, potentially becoming of use to me or at least not costing me any money to keep the project running.
Slashdot has a fanatical hatered and subversive attitude towards Microsoft, not Communism.
There goes about 80% or more of internet content.
It sounds like the Chinese are pretty much limited to looking at propaganda sites and maybe a few for online businesses, and other sites run from within China.
Exactly! Do we really need to know the inner workings of a planet and how they form when there are bigger things to worry about? I'm just saying that this branch of science may be useful one day, but there are bigger problems to deal with in the area of space immediately surrounding us and on the planet we still live on. Last time I checked there are a lot of people dying from cancer, AIDS, warfare, and other problems we've got. Don't you think the brilliant minds looking for planets could be better put to use solving the more serious problems we're facing now?
I read enough of TFA to realize that it wasn't really worth finishing. There wouldn't be any useful information I could apply to my life, just some trivial information about this particular planet and some ideas scientists have about planetary formation. I fail to see how this information can in any way be applied to make the world a better place at the current time.
This information may prove useful at some point in time and perhaps it will be of great benefit to humanity. However, this will be long after I'm dead and gone.
Go ahead and flame me if you want. Mod me insightful, a troll, or redundent, but I'm just voicing my opinion on the matter.
Until you can come back and tell me that you've found a planet that is similar enough to Earth that we will be able to live on it, or we've found a planet made entirely of valuable metals and minerals that will vastly improve life, why keep releasing the same unimpressive information.
I don't want to rag on the people who are actually interested and excited by this, but considering how large the universe is, there are probably hundreds of other planets out there similar to this one.
Additionally, there is also the problem that a lot of these planets and other things we see out in space are quite far away. A lot of the stuff we see in space might have actually happened before we were born. It just takes it that damned long for it to be visible to us. Add in the fact that even if we do find another planet incredibly like earth, we really don't have any current reliable means to get there.
So let's get to work on figuring out how to get around in space faster before we bother looking for things that might be worth getting to. Let's get some people actually living on the moon or possibly another planet like Mars before we start bothering with anything outside our immediate proximity.
Imagine for a minute that some company creates a drug that can cure cancer, AIDS, and a number of other diseases that we can't cure today. The company could choose not to patent this cure in the hopes that no one would be able to discover how it works. If no one could ever figure it out, they could continue to charge whatever they wanted for it, and people would have no choice but to pay or to likely die from their illness.
However, the company can patent it and protect their rights to it for a certain amount of time. If it were 14 years, they would have the sole right to create or allow other people to create the drug. After those 14 years, anyone could freely create the drug. So initially, prices would be high, but after 14 years they would probably hit rock bottom when other companies can undercut the price and get in on the action.
Now which would you rather have, knowledge controled and exploited by the few for as long as it takes someone else to learn that knowledge, or a set amount of time for whoever made the discovery to profit from it before it becomes available for free to everyone.
A patent system allows a winning situation for everyone. Without one, many people wouldn't want to spend time researching a discovery if everyone else will be able to steal it and profit from their hard work. Essentially, the patent system allows for capitalism to work well, provided the patent system isn't screwed up horribly.
To me this just seems like a grab at some media attention. Heaven forbid that everyone stops talking about company Z for a few minutes. Perhaps they're just throwing it out there to see how Sony and Nintendo react to the proposition.
If they do, do this it's win-win for Microsoft all the way. First they get money when anyone wants to add Xbox functionality to whatever device they want. Then they get money whenever anyone buys an Xbox game to play on that piece of hardware. They don't have to worry about anything but counting all the money that rolls in.
Since Microsoft has poured a lot of money into the Xbox 360, they really need to make it succeed. They can't go on having the Xbox lose money all the time. This means they can't really spent much effort with their current generation machine once it launches. Since it runs on and Intel chip, which a lot of PCs use anyway, it shouldn't be hard to create an Xbox Virtual Machine or have someone else buy the rights to create one to run on some other type of hardware. Microsoft has just found a way to continue expanding the Xbox platform without having to do any work. Even if it's a failure, it doesn't hurt Microsoft as much because they're not directly involved.
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
The only reason Windows is the platform for gaming is because they have over a 90% market share when it comes to PCs. Does it make more sense to try and develope a game that targets that other percentage which is broken up into various forms of Linux, something from Apple, or some other OS?
Given the generally shoddy products that Microsoft has released over the years (IE, Windows ME, etc.) I sometimes have to wonder if another platform were more dominent would we see even better developement opportunities than what DirectX offers?
A majority of the statements that Chris Donahue makes are just filler that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
"DirectX started off as an underground project, with a bunch of guys hijacking resources, both money and people, and building a set of tools to make it easier to make games for Windows because they knew that Windows was going to be a great platform for games."
Or they knew that Windows would be about the only platform left.
"The flexibility and power of Windows as a development platform (as well as the mouse and keyboard being the best interface for these types of games) has been a key reason for the strength of online gaming on Windows--that's part of the reason that InStat says there are 20 times more gamers online using Windows than all the consoles combined."
Of course, considering that console makers really don't push their product into areas like Korea and don't have MMORPGs like EQ and WoW. Look at the millions of people in Korea who play Lineage and the millions who play World of Warcraft, EverQuest, and other MMOs. Additionally a lot of people play RTS and FPS games online as well. Consoles might have some of these, but not as many as the PC can offer. This statement is at best an interesting fact, but doesn't really say anything special.
"Windows gaming is kind of the Energizer bunny of gaming platforms--it just keeps going and going. And it keeps on innovating. Windows is where new and innovative technology happens first, and it's where new and exciting game genres show up first."
I already had a go at this comment in another post. Go find it if you really want to hear me rant more.
There are some interesting bits of information in the article, but there's a lot of pointless comments that don't belong there or just talk about making things better or easier. I wish people would stop dancing around the question and give us some real meat. If they can't provide us with some specifics, don't bother giving the interview to tell us stuff that's blatantly obvious.
Windows gaming is kind of the Energizer bunny of gaming platforms--it just keeps going and going. And it keeps on innovating. Windows is where new and innovative technology happens first, and it's where new and exciting game genres show up first.
Are all Microsoft employees required to incessantly spout the same crap over and over again. Microsoft has made some good products, but that last thing I want to hear over and over again is the same BS line about how Microsoft keeps innovating. I can't even look out the window anymore without some Microsoft goon shovel feeding me the same line about inovation.
Honestly, I can never really recall any great innovative product ever really being made by microsoft. I know that they've made some good products, but it seems to me that they've all been done before.
OS software was around long before Microsoft ever stuck its foot in the door. Internet browsers were around before IE came around. Text editors, spreadsheets, and other Office software had been developed before Microsoft made their versions. Gaming consoles and video games had been around a lot longer as well.
Windows and IE aren't the best products in the world, but I'm quite happy with Word and my Xbox. I just wish they'd stop thinking I was born yesterday and will believe that they're revolutionizing the world with every single thing they do. It's almost gotten to the point where someone craps in a box and starts heralding it as the next big thing.
If Microsoft wouldn't hype their stuff up so much, maybe some folks wouldn't be so let down when it doesn't live up to all the promises.
More seriously, by the time Longhorn actually gets released, the world might have passed RSS by. Either that or there will be several third party applications that will do something similar to what Microsoft hopes to do that will have already been released for XP.
Additionally, even if Microsoft does make an application that is buggy as all hell and hands every virus on the web free access to your machine, you don't have to use it. Unless, of course, Microsoft is tricky and builds it into IE. Even then you don't have to use IE.
So what if people are speculating about how bad this software will be and how insecure it could potentially be. If you don't use any of it, you really don't have to worry about it.
It is normal for game companies to take a loss on hardware whenever a new console launches, since they typically focus on acquiring market share rather than generating a profit during the first year. During the second year and afterward, they can recover the losses with the savings that come from mass production and with licensing fees from publishers.
Nintendo will probably launch the Revolution somewhere between $200 and $300 and still manage to make a profit on every console they sell. A while back there was an excellent article on /. that explained how Nintendo's business model was different from Sony and Microsft, and that even though they came in third place against the Xbox and PS3, they were still the most profitable.
For Sony to release a console after Microsoft and for a higher price could cause problems for them like the article stated. Microsoft has deep enough pockets to launch the console at around $350 when it comes out and cut it down to $300 when the PS3 launches. They'd be taking some huge hits in the pocketbook, but it would probably get more people to buy Xbox 360's.
However, as illustrated with the PSP, some people will buy something no matter how much it costs just because they want it. Sony is really going to need to count on its fan base to help out a lot.
However, it still has the same one button mouse as always. Some things never change.
From the article:
Just last week, analysts at PricewaterhouseCoopers projected the worldwide game industry revenue (revenues from hardware, software, and peripherals) to increase from $25.4 billion in 2004 to $54.6 billion in 2009
According to This site the movie industry pulled in $44.8 billion worldwide for 2004. I don't see the motion picture industry growing as much as the video game industry, so it's quite possible that we could see video games overtake movies before the decade is out.