Voting is good, but it's not the only thing you can do. Personally, I think that starting or being involved in a non-profit or civic organization is at least as effective as writing letters to your elected representitives. Of course, there's probably other stuff you can do, too.
The key component though is to actually do something.
I'll definitely agree with that. The only problem is that I don't think there was another business model in place at the time that would have enabled them to sink money into a free product.
Actually this kind of ties into my point about Firefox. The hype and buzz they generated combined with the search deal with Google created a neat little loop that provided more funding for Mozilla, thus allowing further development, buzz, and marketing.
I honestly cannot fathom the thought processes that bring you to such a ridiculous, one-sided conclusion. Further, you fail to see the errors in your logic even when I point out the logical conclusion of them. Consider your previous statement:
Get real, Sony needs Wal-Mart, not the other way around.
Perhaps we should logically expand the implicit part of your statement:
Sony needs Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't need Sony.
Now let's look take your statement and expand it to a general case. You are claiming that manufacturers need retailers, yet retailers don't need manufacturers. This is absurd. Retailers need goods to sell. Manufacturers make goods. Therefore:
Yeah, if everybody just stopped selling to Wal-Mart, then they'd all go out of business and Wal-Mart would flourish. Oh wait.
The FSF's stance on "freedom" is a political philosophy
This is true. However, you seem to be implying that your stance is not. I fail to see how this is the case:
[The FSF's] is not a dictionary definition of freedom
You present this as a self-evident truth. However the page you yourself linked to has several dozen definitions for "freedom". Here's one example:
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Now for this definition to have meaning, we must also define slavery, detention, and oppression. You would define oppression as any software not in the public domain. This is a valid definition, however it neatly ignores one thing: reality.
Not everyone is benevolent, and these people will take your idealistic freedom and use it to oppress other people. The only way in which this can be avoided is if every person is educated (or at least intelligent) and has perfect information about everything. For some reason, I don't think such a reality is very feasable.
Others have pointed out that no, this story blurb is not FUD, so I'll leave that alone. However, I think you touched on a very critical point:
the experimenter says multiple times that IE7 made doing this VERY DIFFICULT to do without noticing you're braking shit.
So how exactly does IE7 protect the user from screwing themself over? Based on the article, it is through the new "Protected Mode" and "User Account Control". To me these things look like steps in the right direction (even if they are band-aids).
But these systems can of course be bypassed. And it appears that the protections against bypassing them amount to a bunch of warning dialog boxes. This is a problem.
Take one part dialog box and one part clueless luser, add them together, and marvel at the result. The vast majority of lusers I've seen pretty much ignore all dialogs. There are the minority who get paranoid about them ("Illegal operation!"), but most simply click to make the damn things go away.
So what does this mean for IE7/Vista? Well, it will probably be similar to Win2000 or XP, except the lusers will be slightly more agitated from all the extra "Are you sure?" boxes popping up every time they follow their ingrained, rote routines.
I knew exactly where to grab the sword,... without having played it in years. I suspect other games... would trigger the same response, but it's very strange (and perhaps a little scary) how comforting it is for those built in motor memories to kick in again.
I actually had the opposite experience. I went back to play Super Mario World again, and the fact that I remembered a lot of things made it a lot less fun for me. I think it's probably because the first time through I was pretty young and I was super amazed at all the hidden stuff all over the place. It was like some mystical fantasy world or something. So when I played it again, those emotions didn't trigger, and it felt sort of jarring.
There are some games that I have gone back and enjoyed, though, and it's sort of for the opposite reason. I was never very good at Megaman games as a kid, but once I got old enough to like, plan ahead a little and use some actual strategy, I enjoy them a lot more. The enjoyment was different from before, though: when I was a kid, it was all about shooting everything in sight and getting cool guns, but now it's more about strategy and finesse.
Dude, start your own thread. Hitching your wagon to the first post is a clever trick and all, but it increases the level of noise. And on Slashdot, reducing noise is usually an awesome thing to do.
Wal-Mart's revenues for last year were $316 billion, and their profits were $75 billion. Do you really think a large enough portion of that comes from Sony products that they wouldn't consider putting some pressure on Sony if they thought it would help their bottom line?
I don't have figures for all "Sony products", however I do have some figures that you probably should've looked for before making such a huge assumption.
In 2001, Wal-Mart accounted for 25 percent of computer and video game sales in the US. I doubt that this percentage has decreased, and it may have increased. In 2004, Americans spent about $10 billion on console hardware and software. This makes console hardware and software account for about 1% of Wal-Mart's revenue.
Now obviously Sony is not the only console maker. However during this past generation they held over 50% of the marketshare for home consoles (hardware sales). Is this still sounding like a good idea? I certainly don't think so. Regarding your other points:
It wouldn't be a PR disaster for Wal-Mart. No one outside the gaming community would even care.
The launch of new game systems usually makes the news. If Wal-Mart gets no PS3s, we can expect teasers of "the PS3 launch will be crazy...but GUESS WHO isn't in on the action?!?!". Even if that doesn't happen, I'm pretty sure thousands (or millions) of people will check with their local Wal-Mart to see if they have PS3s. Not having them would force these potential customers to buy from someone else, loosening the Wal-Mart grip on not only games but retail sales in general (maybe not by lots, but definitely some).
Get real, Sony needs Wal-Mart, not the other way around.
Yeah, if everybody just stopped selling to Wal-Mart, then they'd all go out of business and Wal-Mart would flourish. Oh wait.
The reason the GPL3 gets picked on so much is that most people forget that the GPL is only a means to an end. It is the legal agreement that the FSF believes will promote the ideals of Free Software. All versions of the GPL have had requirements in them, and this one is no different.
In essence, people are confusing the algorithm (Free Software) with the implementation (the specific license or version thereof). The fact that the most visible people whining about it are programmers is truly some incredible irony.
The first thing I noticed when reading your post is that I don't think you understand the goal of the GNU project and the FSF. Their goal is to promote Free Software:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Keeping these points in mind, let's look at your examples:
If you are really interested in building a community, choose a license that... also allows them to leave any time without having to forfeit their work
So if I decide to stop contributing to your GPL3 project, I have to surrender my copyright to the code I've contributed? That's news to me.
[GPL3 forces you] to turn over every single thing to the whole community before you get the blessing to participate.
This is not true. First, no one is forcing you to use this license. You make it out to sound like the FSF will shun you unless you use only this specific license, which is not true. Second, GPL3 does not force you to give up everything. You still hold the copyright to code your wrote, so you can also release it under other licenses. If you release a trademarked program, you can specify how you wish for the mark to be used.
Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door.
See freedoms 2 and 3.
Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man. Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
You do not state the technical manner in which the "secrecy" and "mingling" is happening. Depending on this, these could very well be prohibited by the GPL2, completely invalidating them as fodder for your diatribe.
So what you get is a bunch of people who are actually leeches
This is pretty hilarious. How does the new GPL allow people to "leech" anything? No one is being forced to use this license. I'm guessing you're talking about those evil guys who will no doubt incorporate BSD code into their GPL3 programs. Yeah, those guys are totally violating the spirit of that license. Oh wait.
no one else outside the community can even look at for fear of contamination.
This is no different from looking at code that implements a software patent, or signing an NDA to look at proprietary code.
If you want to profit off of others and view everyone that looks at your code without contribution as suspicious, choose the new GPL.
If by "profit" you mean "allow everyone the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute my code while preventing others from taking away these freedoms", then I agree with you. That's a pretty good profit derived from using this license.
Also, I fail to see how choosing the GPL3 would force me to view those who study my code as "suspicious".
In all, I fail to see how any of your points are really valid. You fail to actually define what you mean by key words in your argument. Of course, this allows you to shield yourself from having to debate any real issues, such as the meaning of "freedom", "rights", or "responsibilities". So perhaps this was intentional.
I have noticed a trend since the 60s and 70s to make more "normal" things illegal
I think this time period is very key when thinking about America today. Many changes happened, both within "the system" and outside of it as well.
Institutionally, the Civil Rights Movement outlawed (in theory) discrimination based on race. The space program forced people to think about living on a tiny rock hurtling through the universe. Vietnam raised questions about the ethics of war and government. Student movements and the "New Left" created new political debate and questions.
Non-institutionally, lots of other stuff was happening. Women were becoming financially independent. The hippie and counterculture movements were questioning lots of things.
There was the sexual revolution. It challenged the traditional definitions of family and gender roles, as well as the latent Puritan morality of America. Effective birth control also forced people to think about the nature of sex and biology.
Other tradidtional views were challenged. The recreational use of drugs, freedom of speech, etc.
Oh, and Roe v. Wade.
----
In my opinion, a lot of these things scared the hell out of the establishment. Those in power often use things like religion, race, sex, nationalism, and "morality" to try and control the people. A lot of the movements going on during this period in America were challenging all these things.
Of course, they found allies in social conservatives. Most especially, "Christian" conservatives. People like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. These folks have worked their entire lives to frame all of public debate as a battle between God-fearing Real Americans(tm) and godless, immoral commie liberal dogs.
Unfortunately, the noise these folks create drowns out much of anything resembling real debate, and we've all suffered as a result. Consider:
The Reagan Administration decided that they anti-trust laws weren't that important, and they would only enforce them if a corporation was gouging the consumer.
Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all gave huge presents to the rich. Taxes were restructured so that corporations and rich people pay much less than they used to. This of course means either deficits or less funding for things, and less funding for the EPA is always good for people like Exxon. The estate tax is also old, we don't need that anymore. Oh and anything that supports "free trade" is awesome.
And of course then there's the "wars" on drugs and terrorism.
That might be part of the reason, but I think there are two other reasons that are at least as big: Firefox hype, and Opera's past policy of ads in the free version.
I think it is fair to say that Firefox has reached some value of "critical mass". Googling for browser marketshare returns statistics that generally show Opera having a tenth or less of the marketshare FF does. A lot of this probably has to do with the hype surrounding Firefox: it's a "new" browser, born from the ashes of Netscape, taking on the Gates Empire and bearing the aegis of Free Software/Open Source.
At first glance, Opera is kind of the other side of the coin here. They're not (as) new, they aren't connected to a once-great name, they're not Free/Open, and they look more like a "business". Of course, a lot of this is either not true or irrelevant. But then they also have the fact that the free (as in beer) version of their browser used to have wonderful banner ads. I think this last point is most important.
When Netscape started dying, people didn't have a lot of choice for browsers. There was Internet Explorer (cost: $0) and Opera (cost: annoying ads). I think that if Opera had had a non-ad, basic freeware version, they would probably have captured a lot of the people who now use Firefox. And the ad-version could very well hang over them in the minds of some people.
By the end of the coming console cycle, the graphics will look dated, HD or not. I've experienced this many times with PC games: my setup isn't powerful enough to make it super pretty until the game is old enough to not look super pretty anyway. The people who will get the HD benefit this time around will be those who already have an HD set. So basically, not that many.
Anyway, it's apparent that you're nothing but a Sony-fanboi troll
That's weird, I don't remember proclaiming my undying love for some faceless multinational corporation anywhere in this discussion. But hey I don't "follow the industry", so I'll take your word here. The even weirder part is that the only Sony game-stuff I own is a few games for the PS2 (plus the PS2 required to play them), and I don't plan on buying a PS3. Also:
it's apparent that you're nothing but a Sony-fanboi troll
Thanks for reducing the whole of my being to a one-dimensional datum based on some snarky posts I made on Slashdot. The fact that you are capable of this proves you are obviously much smarter and a much better person than me.
who can only throw ad hominem attacks, rather that participate in any meaningful debate.
It's pretty easy to scream "AD HOMINEM" whenever someone is mean to you on the Internet. And often it is justified. However, my posts, while rude, do not base their arguments off of attacks on you. In fact, the reverse is true. Anything resembling an "attack" is based off of a valid point.
And you're still wrong. You misjudged or confused the original discussion, hence the progression of my arguments. The fact that I became angry is rather apparent when you realize this.
I hope and pray you've never written a paper with citations.
Also, I didn't realize that your post referenced so many publications. Sorry about that, I don't expect anyone to load up each article on 30 websites and page through every issue of every one of the magazines/papers you read.
You know, somebody should invent some tech that would allow a person to type in some keywords and then search through all the text on the Internet. That would be cool! And for paper stuff, they could save a page or two to list all the articles contained inside. Whoever could figure out how to those things will become a very rich person.
Yeah, it totally wouldn't be a PR disaster when the hot new game console isn't available at your store because you had to try and be a big tough guy on pricing.
First let's look at the title of the original post: "Don't look at what they say..." Then I go right on to say "Look at what Sony is doing instead of what they're saying." Then (and here's the kicker) I go on to say "I'd say that Sony is very worried about the competition. If not, then they wouldn't be trying to copy their functionality."
Nowhere in your posts do you explain your reasoning as to "how Sony is copying" and why this shows that "they are worried about the competition". All you do is say "they're copying X" and then "I believe this means they're scared of the competition".
Nowhere do you detail the methods of "how" Sony is "copying". Explaining how someone is doing something means explaining the methods they are using. You say nothing like this.
Neither do you detail how these unelaborated-on methods indicate that Sony is "worried about the competition". You simply state that "I feel this". OK, that's great, but it does not satisfy my request for you to explain your reasoning. Usually when people have an opinion, they have reasons as to why they think these things.
Also, the great irony of your latest reply is that you accuse me of being incapable of understanding language, yet you are the one who has completely failed to understand the language of my requests. You get a gold star.
So if something meets a social need, it will automatically take off and become popular? That's a rather hard statement to accept.
I think you've forgotten some key components that create 'de factos'. One is timing. For example: there were social networking sites before Myspace. Friendster was the Next Big Thing, yet it didn't take off like some others.
If America suddenly had lots of viable political parties or disbanded all parties and then we had 5 candidates in every race, it would not eliminate mudslinging. It would simply require more calculated attacks from the campaigns and parties. Right now, the two major parties generally just target someone in the other.
I get the feeling you don't really understand logic, and you're assuming that if you claim you're a genius I'll just let you talk out of your ass. As I suspected, an idiot.
My original subject was "RPG support on 360 steadily getting better". I was comparing it to the last Xbox generation.
Congratulations. Except you were the one who replied to me. And my original post, while talking about RPGs, was in response to a post that claimed the 360 will "do better" because of the RPG support. So our original topic here is not about RPGs! It's about how they support the fucking system!
None of the rest of your novella here has anything to do with the original discussion, as you are elaborating in a direction that's leading you futher and further away into buttery fanboyland. I imagine your reply to this post will be a twelve-part history and interpretive dance on how the color was chosen for the 37th pixel of the "Figher" sprite from Final Fantasy I. I look forward to it.
comparing a ripped off controller design to biological reproduction... [makes you sound like a 7-year-old]
Once again, your grasp of logic slips further and further away from reality. It's pretty hilarious that you think analogies make one look like a child. The truth of the matter here is that you are the child for attacking the use of analogy rather than the content of the analogy itself. Disliking the manner in which an argument is made does not make it wrong. If you wish to actually address what I said, go ahead. Until that time, my point stands.
I'm pointing out that the way Sony is copying Microsoft and Nintendo leads me to believe that Sony is worried about both more than they are letting on.
Bullshit. Neither in your original post nor your replies to me have you stated any sort of reasoning that in any way resembles this statement. From your original post:
Considering the Sony will have some sort of online system to replicate XBox live and their sixasses controller that sounds an awful like a Wiimote crossed with a Dual Shock, I'd say that Sony is very worried about the competition. If not, then they wouldn't be trying to copy their functionality.
And from your reply:
And of all the things Sony could've placed in their controller after having to remove the rumble I find it hard to believe that Sony independently decided on the EXACT SAME thing Nintendo is putting in their new console. That is also copying.
These two quotes are the only times you make any statements about Sony "copying" the other console makers. In neither of these cases do you make any claims nor perform any analysis whatsoever regarding "the way they are copying" nor how it shows they are "worried about the competition". All you do is make a statement that "OMG THEY'RE COPYING", and you cast this with a generally negative connotation.
In conclusion, sorry about failing Logic 101. Next time I suggest stepping outside your personal namespace.
Slashdot Mirror
Voting is good, but it's not the only thing you can do. Personally, I think that starting or being involved in a non-profit or civic organization is at least as effective as writing letters to your elected representitives. Of course, there's probably other stuff you can do, too.
The key component though is to actually do something.
I'll definitely agree with that. The only problem is that I don't think there was another business model in place at the time that would have enabled them to sink money into a free product.
Actually this kind of ties into my point about Firefox. The hype and buzz they generated combined with the search deal with Google created a neat little loop that provided more funding for Mozilla, thus allowing further development, buzz, and marketing.
I honestly cannot fathom the thought processes that bring you to such a ridiculous, one-sided conclusion. Further, you fail to see the errors in your logic even when I point out the logical conclusion of them. Consider your previous statement:
Get real, Sony needs Wal-Mart, not the other way around.
Perhaps we should logically expand the implicit part of your statement:
Sony needs Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't need Sony.
Now let's look take your statement and expand it to a general case. You are claiming that manufacturers need retailers, yet retailers don't need manufacturers. This is absurd. Retailers need goods to sell. Manufacturers make goods. Therefore:
Yeah, if everybody just stopped selling to Wal-Mart, then they'd all go out of business and Wal-Mart would flourish. Oh wait.
QED.
The FSF's stance on "freedom" is a political philosophy
This is true. However, you seem to be implying that your stance is not. I fail to see how this is the case:
[The FSF's] is not a dictionary definition of freedom
You present this as a self-evident truth. However the page you yourself linked to has several dozen definitions for "freedom". Here's one example:
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Now for this definition to have meaning, we must also define slavery, detention, and oppression. You would define oppression as any software not in the public domain. This is a valid definition, however it neatly ignores one thing: reality.
Not everyone is benevolent, and these people will take your idealistic freedom and use it to oppress other people. The only way in which this can be avoided is if every person is educated (or at least intelligent) and has perfect information about everything. For some reason, I don't think such a reality is very feasable.
Others have pointed out that no, this story blurb is not FUD, so I'll leave that alone. However, I think you touched on a very critical point:
the experimenter says multiple times that IE7 made doing this VERY DIFFICULT to do without noticing you're braking shit.
So how exactly does IE7 protect the user from screwing themself over? Based on the article, it is through the new "Protected Mode" and "User Account Control". To me these things look like steps in the right direction (even if they are band-aids).
But these systems can of course be bypassed. And it appears that the protections against bypassing them amount to a bunch of warning dialog boxes. This is a problem.
Take one part dialog box and one part clueless luser, add them together, and marvel at the result. The vast majority of lusers I've seen pretty much ignore all dialogs. There are the minority who get paranoid about them ("Illegal operation!"), but most simply click to make the damn things go away.
So what does this mean for IE7/Vista? Well, it will probably be similar to Win2000 or XP, except the lusers will be slightly more agitated from all the extra "Are you sure ?" boxes popping up every time they follow their ingrained, rote routines.
Education, not dialog boxes, is the answer.
I knew exactly where to grab the sword, ... without having played it in years. I suspect other games ... would trigger the same response, but it's very strange (and perhaps a little scary) how comforting it is for those built in motor memories to kick in again.
I actually had the opposite experience. I went back to play Super Mario World again, and the fact that I remembered a lot of things made it a lot less fun for me. I think it's probably because the first time through I was pretty young and I was super amazed at all the hidden stuff all over the place. It was like some mystical fantasy world or something. So when I played it again, those emotions didn't trigger, and it felt sort of jarring.
There are some games that I have gone back and enjoyed, though, and it's sort of for the opposite reason. I was never very good at Megaman games as a kid, but once I got old enough to like, plan ahead a little and use some actual strategy, I enjoy them a lot more. The enjoyment was different from before, though: when I was a kid, it was all about shooting everything in sight and getting cool guns, but now it's more about strategy and finesse.
I've heard Barbie Horse Adventures actually isn't a bad game. Yeah, OK, it's made for little girls, but it's a good game for little girls.
Dude, start your own thread. Hitching your wagon to the first post is a clever trick and all, but it increases the level of noise. And on Slashdot, reducing noise is usually an awesome thing to do.
Wal-Mart's revenues for last year were $316 billion, and their profits were $75 billion. Do you really think a large enough portion of that comes from Sony products that they wouldn't consider putting some pressure on Sony if they thought it would help their bottom line?
I don't have figures for all "Sony products", however I do have some figures that you probably should've looked for before making such a huge assumption.
In 2001, Wal-Mart accounted for 25 percent of computer and video game sales in the US. I doubt that this percentage has decreased, and it may have increased. In 2004, Americans spent about $10 billion on console hardware and software. This makes console hardware and software account for about 1% of Wal-Mart's revenue.
Now obviously Sony is not the only console maker. However during this past generation they held over 50% of the marketshare for home consoles (hardware sales). Is this still sounding like a good idea? I certainly don't think so. Regarding your other points:
It wouldn't be a PR disaster for Wal-Mart. No one outside the gaming community would even care.
The launch of new game systems usually makes the news. If Wal-Mart gets no PS3s, we can expect teasers of "the PS3 launch will be crazy...but GUESS WHO isn't in on the action?!?!". Even if that doesn't happen, I'm pretty sure thousands (or millions) of people will check with their local Wal-Mart to see if they have PS3s. Not having them would force these potential customers to buy from someone else, loosening the Wal-Mart grip on not only games but retail sales in general (maybe not by lots, but definitely some).
Get real, Sony needs Wal-Mart, not the other way around.
Yeah, if everybody just stopped selling to Wal-Mart, then they'd all go out of business and Wal-Mart would flourish. Oh wait.
The reason the GPL3 gets picked on so much is that most people forget that the GPL is only a means to an end. It is the legal agreement that the FSF believes will promote the ideals of Free Software. All versions of the GPL have had requirements in them, and this one is no different.
In essence, people are confusing the algorithm (Free Software) with the implementation (the specific license or version thereof). The fact that the most visible people whining about it are programmers is truly some incredible irony.
Keeping these points in mind, let's look at your examples:
If you are really interested in building a community, choose a license that
So if I decide to stop contributing to your GPL3 project, I have to surrender my copyright to the code I've contributed? That's news to me.
[GPL3 forces you] to turn over every single thing to the whole community before you get the blessing to participate.
This is not true. First, no one is forcing you to use this license. You make it out to sound like the FSF will shun you unless you use only this specific license, which is not true. Second, GPL3 does not force you to give up everything. You still hold the copyright to code your wrote, so you can also release it under other licenses. If you release a trademarked program, you can specify how you wish for the mark to be used.
Got a patent? Sorry, bud, check that at the door.
See freedoms 2 and 3.
Want to run specialized programs that require secrecy of code? Not on this platform, man. Want to mingle your closed code with our open widget? Give up all your source first.
You do not state the technical manner in which the "secrecy" and "mingling" is happening. Depending on this, these could very well be prohibited by the GPL2, completely invalidating them as fodder for your diatribe.
So what you get is a bunch of people who are actually leeches
This is pretty hilarious. How does the new GPL allow people to "leech" anything? No one is being forced to use this license. I'm guessing you're talking about those evil guys who will no doubt incorporate BSD code into their GPL3 programs. Yeah, those guys are totally violating the spirit of that license. Oh wait.
no one else outside the community can even look at for fear of contamination.
This is no different from looking at code that implements a software patent, or signing an NDA to look at proprietary code.
If you want to profit off of others and view everyone that looks at your code without contribution as suspicious, choose the new GPL.
If by "profit" you mean "allow everyone the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute my code while preventing others from taking away these freedoms", then I agree with you. That's a pretty good profit derived from using this license.
Also, I fail to see how choosing the GPL3 would force me to view those who study my code as "suspicious".
In all, I fail to see how any of your points are really valid. You fail to actually define what you mean by key words in your argument. Of course, this allows you to shield yourself from having to debate any real issues, such as the meaning of "freedom", "rights", or "responsibilities". So perhaps this was intentional.
I have noticed a trend since the 60s and 70s to make more "normal" things illegal
I think this time period is very key when thinking about America today. Many changes happened, both within "the system" and outside of it as well.
Institutionally, the Civil Rights Movement outlawed (in theory) discrimination based on race. The space program forced people to think about living on a tiny rock hurtling through the universe. Vietnam raised questions about the ethics of war and government. Student movements and the "New Left" created new political debate and questions.
Non-institutionally, lots of other stuff was happening. Women were becoming financially independent. The hippie and counterculture movements were questioning lots of things.
There was the sexual revolution. It challenged the traditional definitions of family and gender roles, as well as the latent Puritan morality of America. Effective birth control also forced people to think about the nature of sex and biology.
Other tradidtional views were challenged. The recreational use of drugs, freedom of speech, etc.
Oh, and Roe v. Wade.
----
In my opinion, a lot of these things scared the hell out of the establishment. Those in power often use things like religion, race, sex, nationalism, and "morality" to try and control the people. A lot of the movements going on during this period in America were challenging all these things.
Of course, they found allies in social conservatives. Most especially, "Christian" conservatives. People like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. These folks have worked their entire lives to frame all of public debate as a battle between God-fearing Real Americans(tm) and godless, immoral commie liberal dogs.
Unfortunately, the noise these folks create drowns out much of anything resembling real debate, and we've all suffered as a result. Consider:
The Reagan Administration decided that they anti-trust laws weren't that important, and they would only enforce them if a corporation was gouging the consumer.
Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all gave huge presents to the rich. Taxes were restructured so that corporations and rich people pay much less than they used to. This of course means either deficits or less funding for things, and less funding for the EPA is always good for people like Exxon. The estate tax is also old, we don't need that anymore. Oh and anything that supports "free trade" is awesome.
And of course then there's the "wars" on drugs and terrorism.
Anyway, I'll stop rambling now.
That might be part of the reason, but I think there are two other reasons that are at least as big: Firefox hype, and Opera's past policy of ads in the free version.
I think it is fair to say that Firefox has reached some value of "critical mass". Googling for browser marketshare returns statistics that generally show Opera having a tenth or less of the marketshare FF does. A lot of this probably has to do with the hype surrounding Firefox: it's a "new" browser, born from the ashes of Netscape, taking on the Gates Empire and bearing the aegis of Free Software/Open Source.
At first glance, Opera is kind of the other side of the coin here. They're not (as) new, they aren't connected to a once-great name, they're not Free/Open, and they look more like a "business". Of course, a lot of this is either not true or irrelevant. But then they also have the fact that the free (as in beer) version of their browser used to have wonderful banner ads. I think this last point is most important.
When Netscape started dying, people didn't have a lot of choice for browsers. There was Internet Explorer (cost: $0) and Opera (cost: annoying ads). I think that if Opera had had a non-ad, basic freeware version, they would probably have captured a lot of the people who now use Firefox. And the ad-version could very well hang over them in the minds of some people.
A Trojan is now a "sheathed injection of digital harmony!"
Depending on what you mean by "Trojan" and "digital", you may be right on the spot.
By the end of the coming console cycle, the graphics will look dated, HD or not. I've experienced this many times with PC games: my setup isn't powerful enough to make it super pretty until the game is old enough to not look super pretty anyway. The people who will get the HD benefit this time around will be those who already have an HD set. So basically, not that many.
Anyway, it's apparent that you're nothing but a Sony-fanboi troll
That's weird, I don't remember proclaiming my undying love for some faceless multinational corporation anywhere in this discussion. But hey I don't "follow the industry", so I'll take your word here. The even weirder part is that the only Sony game-stuff I own is a few games for the PS2 (plus the PS2 required to play them), and I don't plan on buying a PS3. Also:
it's apparent that you're nothing but a Sony-fanboi troll
Thanks for reducing the whole of my being to a one-dimensional datum based on some snarky posts I made on Slashdot. The fact that you are capable of this proves you are obviously much smarter and a much better person than me.
who can only throw ad hominem attacks, rather that participate in any meaningful debate.
It's pretty easy to scream "AD HOMINEM" whenever someone is mean to you on the Internet. And often it is justified. However, my posts, while rude, do not base their arguments off of attacks on you. In fact, the reverse is true. Anything resembling an "attack" is based off of a valid point.
And you're still wrong. You misjudged or confused the original discussion, hence the progression of my arguments. The fact that I became angry is rather apparent when you realize this.
Oh sure, I can really link to paper sources
I hope and pray you've never written a paper with citations.
Also, I didn't realize that your post referenced so many publications. Sorry about that, I don't expect anyone to load up each article on 30 websites and page through every issue of every one of the magazines/papers you read.
You know, somebody should invent some tech that would allow a person to type in some keywords and then search through all the text on the Internet. That would be cool! And for paper stuff, they could save a page or two to list all the articles contained inside. Whoever could figure out how to those things will become a very rich person.
Yeah, it totally wouldn't be a PR disaster when the hot new game console isn't available at your store because you had to try and be a big tough guy on pricing.
Oh wait, yeah it would.
First let's look at the title of the original post: "Don't look at what they say..." Then I go right on to say "Look at what Sony is doing instead of what they're saying." Then (and here's the kicker) I go on to say "I'd say that Sony is very worried about the competition. If not, then they wouldn't be trying to copy their functionality."
Nowhere in your posts do you explain your reasoning as to "how Sony is copying" and why this shows that "they are worried about the competition". All you do is say "they're copying X" and then "I believe this means they're scared of the competition".
Nowhere do you detail the methods of "how" Sony is "copying". Explaining how someone is doing something means explaining the methods they are using. You say nothing like this.
Neither do you detail how these unelaborated-on methods indicate that Sony is "worried about the competition". You simply state that "I feel this". OK, that's great, but it does not satisfy my request for you to explain your reasoning. Usually when people have an opinion, they have reasons as to why they think these things.
Also, the great irony of your latest reply is that you accuse me of being incapable of understanding language, yet you are the one who has completely failed to understand the language of my requests. You get a gold star.
So if something meets a social need, it will automatically take off and become popular? That's a rather hard statement to accept.
I think you've forgotten some key components that create 'de factos'. One is timing. For example: there were social networking sites before Myspace. Friendster was the Next Big Thing, yet it didn't take off like some others.
If America suddenly had lots of viable political parties or disbanded all parties and then we had 5 candidates in every race, it would not eliminate mudslinging. It would simply require more calculated attacks from the campaigns and parties. Right now, the two major parties generally just target someone in the other.
I get the feeling you don't really understand logic, and you're assuming that if you claim you're a genius I'll just let you talk out of your ass. As I suspected, an idiot.
My original subject was "RPG support on 360 steadily getting better". I was comparing it to the last Xbox generation.
Congratulations. Except you were the one who replied to me. And my original post, while talking about RPGs, was in response to a post that claimed the 360 will "do better" because of the RPG support. So our original topic here is not about RPGs! It's about how they support the fucking system!
None of the rest of your novella here has anything to do with the original discussion, as you are elaborating in a direction that's leading you futher and further away into buttery fanboyland. I imagine your reply to this post will be a twelve-part history and interpretive dance on how the color was chosen for the 37th pixel of the "Figher" sprite from Final Fantasy I. I look forward to it.
comparing a ripped off controller design to biological reproduction ... [makes you sound like a 7-year-old]
Once again, your grasp of logic slips further and further away from reality. It's pretty hilarious that you think analogies make one look like a child. The truth of the matter here is that you are the child for attacking the use of analogy rather than the content of the analogy itself. Disliking the manner in which an argument is made does not make it wrong. If you wish to actually address what I said, go ahead. Until that time, my point stands.
I'm pointing out that the way Sony is copying Microsoft and Nintendo leads me to believe that Sony is worried about both more than they are letting on.
Bullshit. Neither in your original post nor your replies to me have you stated any sort of reasoning that in any way resembles this statement. From your original post:
Considering the Sony will have some sort of online system to replicate XBox live and their sixasses controller that sounds an awful like a Wiimote crossed with a Dual Shock, I'd say that Sony is very worried about the competition. If not, then they wouldn't be trying to copy their functionality.
And from your reply:
And of all the things Sony could've placed in their controller after having to remove the rumble I find it hard to believe that Sony independently decided on the EXACT SAME thing Nintendo is putting in their new console. That is also copying.
These two quotes are the only times you make any statements about Sony "copying" the other console makers. In neither of these cases do you make any claims nor perform any analysis whatsoever regarding "the way they are copying" nor how it shows they are "worried about the competition". All you do is make a statement that "OMG THEY'RE COPYING", and you cast this with a generally negative connotation.
In conclusion, sorry about failing Logic 101. Next time I suggest stepping outside your personal namespace.
While you do retain the copyright to code linked to QT under the GPL, it doesn't help you any.
Yeah like, for example if someone takes your GPL stuff and puts in a proprietary app, you totally can't sue them.
Oh wait, you're full of shit.
the Linux platform needs ... A set of standardized GUI libraries that are free for both commercial and open-source applications.
You mispelled "proprietary" there. It's cool though, lots of people do it.
Also I'm not really sure why you think the Linux kernel needs widget toolkits.
Anyway, yeah there's totally no toolkits that allow proprietary apps.