But what I really don't like is that Sony is using PS3 to drive/push their format through.
Hey, guess what I heard? Nintendo is using the Wii to push their Wii format through. Focusing on Bluray ignores the reality that all these formats are proprietary, which is exactly what the parent said. And by "all" formats, I don't mean just video discs: I'm including the games themselves. Hell, the formats for PS3/X360/Wii games are even more locked down than say DVD, as the game formats are controlled by one company which can act much more arbitrarily than even the collusive multinational agreements that exist for DVD.
I don't think this is really that interesting. Sun, being a big company, must run things past the lawyers. GPL v3 is not finished, and they are probably extra-extra-concerned about the patent revocation clauses and how exactly that stuff will be worded. So basically they're just covering their asses.
They also said any game that needed a new peripheral, such as Guitar Hero, would NOT work.
I really wish Sony made some PSX -> USB dongles to get around this. The whole idea of backwards compatibility is to not need every system you've ever bought. Of course, I have no plans to buy a PS3 anytime soon, so it doesn't really affect me; however I do still have my Gameboy Color, for the few games that require either its formfactor or its IR port.
My guess: the PS1 is a lot less complex than the PS2. The more complicated the system, the harder it is to emulate 100% correctly.
Another thing is that, with the PS2, Sony was not able to stream software updates over the internet onto peoples' hard drives. The PS3's storage and connectivity abilities allow them to be "lazier" in getting the bugs out of the system, just like Microsoft with the Xbox and 360.
Actually, this is more on point than you might think. From the article:
Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner.
The title of "godfather" probably more accurately describes someone like RMS or Theo de Raadt, who are both very, uh, ideological with their software. Linus, on the other hand, is simply the chief hacker on a very important piece of software in the Free/Open ecosystem. He himself even says that he's more a coder than any kind of revolutionary.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to focus too much on any one person, as no one can really claim to be the most important. Sure, the kernel is maybe seen as "most important" in some ways, but we shouldn't forget the hundreds of other critical pieces of software that people use every day. And even within a project, there is often a core group of people who defer to one head. For example, the core kernel team: people like Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, Ted T'so, and on and on.
Then there are people who pushed free software/open source forward in other ways. People like Michael Tiemann, who pioneered the business model of selling support and development services for the GNU toolchain. Or the folks inside Netscape (including Jim Barksdale) who pushed for the release of their code.
I guess my point is that "journalists" should really try to not oversimplify things, and to get the facts right besides.
One problem is that it may be hard for some people to actually enforce the terms of the license that the software was released under. I'm really not sure how this would play out, but it would involve courts and lawyers, and such things cost money. And many GPL'd projects are run by volunteers, who usually don't have lots of money.
No offense intended, but I'll get my legal advice from lawyers and my technical advice from technical people. In other words, I think he's right to keep quiet.
Yeah, like how he never talks about, for example, GPL3. Oh wait.
the embryo's are not discarded unless Little Johnny lab tech decides to leave the dish out on the counter, or the freezer goes kaput.
This is absolutely false, and I find it deplorable that you would stoop so low as to lie about a process to try and change someone's opinion. I'm finished here.
Actually, the problem is that I used the wrong word.
Correction: in vitro fertilization produces thousands of embryos that are discarded every year.
This absolutely destroys your claim that embryonic stem cell research "creates life to destroy it". Good job with that "well thought out" part of your "'well thought out' 'moral' 'value'".
omg, wtf are you doing dude? You're posting fucking a geekass post on slashdot in the middle of the night. Seriously dude, discover teh alcohol. It does wonders...
I don't think you understand the method I'm talking about. Let's look at the steps involved:
1. Women/couples go through the process of in vitro fertilization. This requires that a large number of eggs be taken from the woman's ovaries. 2. These eggs don't live forever. I honestly cannot believe you said such a stupid thing. 3. Eggs that are not used are discarded. This happens all the time, and the number of discarded eggs is huge.
The bill that passed the US Congress but was vetoed by President Bush simply inserted another step between 2 and 3. It allowed women going through this process to sign a release that would allow researchers to use her extra, unuseable, going-to-die-soon eggs.
PS: I should note that my entire argument does not even begin to address your assertion that eggs are "life". I did this because I wanted to show that, even granting you such a ridiculous claim, there is still a very poor case for not allowing sane stem-cell research (such as described above).
AFAIK, the ban on federal funding is targeted only at embryonic stem cell research. And that is only because the embryo is destroyed in the process.
This is true. However, this fact is irrelevant, while at the same time allowing politicians to throw some red meat to their "religious" base. So it's pretty convenient for people like Bush.
The reason it is irrelevant is that it is possible to "harvest" more stem cells without "killing" embryos. This is because in vitro fertilization generates a lot of unused embryos. What happens to these embryos? They die. Essentially, this creates a situation similar to checking the "organ donor" box when you renew your driver's license. It's going to die anyway, so go ahead and use it.
Another strategy for launch years is to scope out the most game-unhip stores that for some reason sell video games. The unwashed masses will all run to Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc. During the N64 launch, I got mine from the neighborhood's chronically underperforming K-Mart.
One thing I think we should keep in mind is that, even though the "average gamer age" continues to rise, a significant amount of consoles are bought as Christmas presents (at least in the US). This may be an advantage for Nintendo, as there will certainly be a shortage of PS3s. The Wii is also has a much friendlier price point than the 360 or PS3 (cf. PSP vs. DS).
Slashdot Mirror
But what I really don't like is that Sony is using PS3 to drive/push their format through.
Hey, guess what I heard? Nintendo is using the Wii to push their Wii format through. Focusing on Bluray ignores the reality that all these formats are proprietary, which is exactly what the parent said. And by "all" formats, I don't mean just video discs: I'm including the games themselves. Hell, the formats for PS3/X360/Wii games are even more locked down than say DVD, as the game formats are controlled by one company which can act much more arbitrarily than even the collusive multinational agreements that exist for DVD.
I don't think this is really that interesting. Sun, being a big company, must run things past the lawyers. GPL v3 is not finished, and they are probably extra-extra-concerned about the patent revocation clauses and how exactly that stuff will be worded. So basically they're just covering their asses.
They also said any game that needed a new peripheral, such as Guitar Hero, would NOT work.
I really wish Sony made some PSX -> USB dongles to get around this. The whole idea of backwards compatibility is to not need every system you've ever bought. Of course, I have no plans to buy a PS3 anytime soon, so it doesn't really affect me; however I do still have my Gameboy Color, for the few games that require either its formfactor or its IR port.
My guess: the PS1 is a lot less complex than the PS2. The more complicated the system, the harder it is to emulate 100% correctly.
Another thing is that, with the PS2, Sony was not able to stream software updates over the internet onto peoples' hard drives. The PS3's storage and connectivity abilities allow them to be "lazier" in getting the bugs out of the system, just like Microsoft with the Xbox and 360.
yes, no, maybe
flamebait, notflamebait
Actually, this is more on point than you might think. From the article:
Torvalds has achieved fame as the godfather of the open-source movement, in which software code is shared and developed in a collaborative effort rather than being kept locked up by a single owner.
The title of "godfather" probably more accurately describes someone like RMS or Theo de Raadt, who are both very, uh, ideological with their software. Linus, on the other hand, is simply the chief hacker on a very important piece of software in the Free/Open ecosystem. He himself even says that he's more a coder than any kind of revolutionary.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to focus too much on any one person, as no one can really claim to be the most important. Sure, the kernel is maybe seen as "most important" in some ways, but we shouldn't forget the hundreds of other critical pieces of software that people use every day. And even within a project, there is often a core group of people who defer to one head. For example, the core kernel team: people like Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, Ted T'so, and on and on.
Then there are people who pushed free software/open source forward in other ways. People like Michael Tiemann, who pioneered the business model of selling support and development services for the GNU toolchain. Or the folks inside Netscape (including Jim Barksdale) who pushed for the release of their code.
I guess my point is that "journalists" should really try to not oversimplify things, and to get the facts right besides.
One problem is that it may be hard for some people to actually enforce the terms of the license that the software was released under. I'm really not sure how this would play out, but it would involve courts and lawyers, and such things cost money. And many GPL'd projects are run by volunteers, who usually don't have lots of money.
No offense intended, but I'll get my legal advice from lawyers and my technical advice from technical people. In other words, I think he's right to keep quiet.
Yeah, like how he never talks about, for example, GPL3. Oh wait.
Look... I live in Missouri in the U.S.
I wasn't talking about your situation.
the embryo's are not discarded unless Little Johnny lab tech decides to leave the dish out on the counter, or the freezer goes kaput.
This is absolutely false, and I find it deplorable that you would stoop so low as to lie about a process to try and change someone's opinion. I'm finished here.
Apparently, these people either never heard of Mono before, or assumed it was an STD.
Well, when you think about the potential of getting fscked by an MS patent, the two seem sorta similar...
Remember kids, practice safe hex!
Actually, the problem is that I used the wrong word.
Correction: in vitro fertilization produces thousands of embryos that are discarded every year.
This absolutely destroys your claim that embryonic stem cell research "creates life to destroy it". Good job with that "well thought out" part of your "'well thought out' 'moral' 'value'".
a specific OS, for Christmas?
Ubuntu - Christian Edition?
omg, wtf are you doing dude? You're posting fucking a geekass post on slashdot in the middle of the night. Seriously dude, discover teh alcohol. It does wonders...
My Rebel XT is just as small as any film SLR
Just because film SLRs are the same size doesn't make them or DSLRs "small".
I don't think you understand the method I'm talking about. Let's look at the steps involved:
1. Women/couples go through the process of in vitro fertilization. This requires that a large number of eggs be taken from the woman's ovaries.
2. These eggs don't live forever. I honestly cannot believe you said such a stupid thing.
3. Eggs that are not used are discarded. This happens all the time, and the number of discarded eggs is huge.
The bill that passed the US Congress but was vetoed by President Bush simply inserted another step between 2 and 3. It allowed women going through this process to sign a release that would allow researchers to use her extra, unuseable, going-to-die-soon eggs.
PS: I should note that my entire argument does not even begin to address your assertion that eggs are "life". I did this because I wanted to show that, even granting you such a ridiculous claim, there is still a very poor case for not allowing sane stem-cell research (such as described above).
I think Target's popularity varies in different regions. Of course, I live in its "home" state, so you can imagine it makes a bit of difference...
AFAIK, the ban on federal funding is targeted only at embryonic stem cell research. And that is only because the embryo is destroyed in the process.
This is true. However, this fact is irrelevant, while at the same time allowing politicians to throw some red meat to their "religious" base. So it's pretty convenient for people like Bush.
The reason it is irrelevant is that it is possible to "harvest" more stem cells without "killing" embryos. This is because in vitro fertilization generates a lot of unused embryos. What happens to these embryos? They die. Essentially, this creates a situation similar to checking the "organ donor" box when you renew your driver's license. It's going to die anyway, so go ahead and use it.
And just to clarify, the US stem cell bill that was vetoed used this exact method. So it's pretty obvious that the veto was political BS, rather than some sort of truly well-thought-out "moral value".
No, they allowed their decision to be based on science rather than what some churches say.
Fixed.
it's probably going to be at least -10F by the time the 19th rolls around
As a Minnesotan, I usually laugh at people's "omg it's teh cold" stories. Looks like I can't do that this time. Good game, dude.
Another strategy for launch years is to scope out the most game-unhip stores that for some reason sell video games. The unwashed masses will all run to Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc. During the N64 launch, I got mine from the neighborhood's chronically underperforming K-Mart.
Nintendo claims 4 million by year's end.
One thing I think we should keep in mind is that, even though the "average gamer age" continues to rise, a significant amount of consoles are bought as Christmas presents (at least in the US). This may be an advantage for Nintendo, as there will certainly be a shortage of PS3s. The Wii is also has a much friendlier price point than the 360 or PS3 (cf. PSP vs. DS).
I heard terminal.app is pretty good.
Balkanized For Sure?
For sure...
A lot of Americans copy music secretly, under provisions of the Secret Home Copying Act. I'd link to the act, but, you know, it's a secret.
I know that MPIRG puts out a voter guide, however the link on their site is busted and I don't know how biased they are.