Is that seriously the PS3 logo? I had never seen it before... I was assuming it was just going to be the same old logo with a 3 at the end. If that's the logo, then that's just BAD. What the hell were they on at the time?
From what I've read about the press conference (and from the various opinion pieces I've read on it), it seems that Sony has grown overconfident--and with over 65% market share, can you blame them? Sony is just as much a marketing company as they are a technology company and they know that for much of the mass market of video games, Playstation is the only thing these people know because to them Sony is like a god. They also know that the mass market goes "ooo, look how powerful" and buys it (*cough*PSP*cough*). However, that's the AMERICAN mass market. If the PSP has taught them nothing, then they should know now that having a "do everything" device that's "more powerful" than the competition isn't enough. Of course, maybe that's why they "stole" the motion detection from the Wii? Any way, it seems like a fumble (but more than likely not a crucial one). If Nintendo and/or Microsoft can pull some good tricks out of their hats, then Sony might at least drop down to less than 50% of the market share (and you better believe I hope they do--as this overconfidence is bad for the industry).
I'm not opposed to other people participating in BlueSecurity--I think that if that's how they feel they should fix the problem then they should do it. It's just that my personal belief is that arms races lead to nothing but trouble for both sides (see the Cold War). Sure, they may eventually end, but even if they do both sides are "broke" (see the US debt--sure we've always had one, but it was nowhere near as bad until the Cold War). It's the same thing with the war on terror, it's just one upping each other and trying to anticipate the other person. Plus, even if you shut down a few spammers, there will be more spammers (or they'll find another unseedy business to get in to--like spyware--and I prefer spam over spyware). That's not to say this won't eventually work, but I just think it's just going to aggrevate spammers and lead to problems (and not just for the BlueSecurity members).
As I replied to your sibling post, it all just seems like an arms race to me. I just filter the spam out. No reason to go through it. Sure, an occasional rogue spam message will get through, but not enough to bug me that much. And I've also learned to be careful about who/where I put certain e-mail addresses (and like probably most/.ers--I have one e-mail just for "free registrations" that I have set up just to take in all the junk). I support blue security (and I can understand why people would want to be a member of their service); however, I (personally) do not wish to engage in an arms race against spammers as (at the moment) I am fine with just filtering them out.
Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I was under the (mis)understanding that multiple e-mails may be sent to the spammer and/or the sponsor regarding the issue. It just all sort of seems like an arms race--and we all know those never end well... Personally, filtering works well enough for me (a very rare spam will get through GMail on occasion--less than once a month; whereas my college e-mail address where I manually set the filters gets about 1 per month, but I've shared that e-mail with a lot more places/businesses).
Because at one point I actually enjoyed Japanes RPG's (such as Lunar, Grandia, FF, etc.) I would probably still play some of them on occasion, but my free time is spent on other things now (and different types of games).
Is it a bad thing if people have to take a rest every hour (or few hours)? I see that as a good thing as it'll help people "addicted" to a particular game do something else (for at least a few minutes). I'll admit that I've had that "game addiction" in the past where I've stayed up for more hours than I should have trying to beat a game/boss/whatever. Taking a rest probably would have been beneficial. And any added excercise is also bound to be beneficial. But really... who cares about all that? What matters is whether or not the games will be more fun/open new possibilities because of the new controller. I think it will.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be usable/useful. It has a purpose in specialized computing, for projects/people who require a fully secured computer. But for me (at least), I'd rather have a system with optimal performance and a few security holes (that when discovered are patched in a week or less--as the Linux kernel normally is) rather than a slower system with no security holes that "can't be sunk".
You also need to take into account that when the original argument was made (for x386) processors, people did fewer things with their computers. Now though, people (even casual computer users) do very resource intensive tasks on computers--from 3D games to video rendering and editing. Computers are no longer "just tools", they are now multimedia hubs (possibly even more so than the TV--for some at least).
Amen to that. I had never heard of BlueSecurity before this fiasco, but now that I've heard how much trouble they can give these jackass spammers and that they stick to their guns (no matter the cost), I'd like to support them in some way (although I probably won't join the network, as I don't agree with their methods of stopping spam).
But then you'd have issues with performance and such. The reason the current items are in the kernel to begin with have to do with the need for them to be able to easily communicate with one another and their need to be able to have system override access to all resources. It does make his claim more valid, but it's still not a good idea in practice (unless you're primary focus for an OS is security rather than performance). I also still think that this method would make the various "kernel" components harder to manage/patch--I put kernel in quotes because the parts that would be moved to user land would still be part of the kernel to me (even if not physically).
This sounds great in theory, but in reality it would be impractical. 2.5 million lines of code handling all of the necessary things the Linux Kernel handles really isn't that bad. Adding compartmentalization into the mix will only make it more complicated and make it more likely for a hole to spring somewhere in the "hull"--maybe only one compartment will be flooded then, but the hole may be harder to patch. However, I wouldn't rule compartmentalization out completely, but it should be understood that doing so will increase the complexity/size and not necessarily lower the size/complexity. And isn't Windows XP or Vista like 30 million lines of code (or more)? That's a LOT more than double the size of the Linux kernel...
This is a very good and well thought out response. Fairly convincing as well (sources would have been nice, but are not necessary since the facts you cited have been pointed out in other posts and I've heard them before). However, I still don't think it will be as large of a disaster as the media predicts. Even if 100 million people die (world wide), that's still a small fraction of the world population of over 6 Billion. Is it tragic? Yes. Will it be a huge catastrophe to the country/world/human population? I don't think so. Should we prepare for it? Of course! I don't think researchers and such should ignore the situation. I just don't think the general populous needs to freak out about it (at least not yet). Will I blame the government if they aren't prepared for this? No. I didn't blame them for not being prepared for Hurricane Katrina, so why would I blame them for this? They're response was a bit half-assed, but there's only so much they could have done (doesn't matter if it would have been a Democrat or Liberterian or whoever else in the White House--there are limitations to what our bloated government can do). Disasters happen and they're unpredicatble (to a degree), so why point the finger of blame? Blame is just an excuse to get out of doing things to fix things yourself.
Every 5 years? They're covered for 8 years by warranty, and Honda and Toyota both claim they should last 10 years. The dealer was probably an idiot. I've found that to often be the case when speaking to dealers about hybrids. Best to get your information from reviews, articles, research papers, and the companies' official web sites.
I don't know much about the manufacturing/recycling polution levels, but that is a great point... But I still think stopping the burning of all fossil fuels will reduce pollution more than manufacturing/recylcing of batteries will produce (but I wouldn't know for sure).
I meant adware company, not spyware, although I wouldn't put that past them as well... Google is more likely the spyware company (gathering information from everything you do...), but I still use them--they have great products... even if they are evil and will eventually own my soul... But at least Google's ads aren't annoying (yet)!
Considering most of the flash ads are also from Microsoft (which Slashdot is also biased against), I choose the crazy juice option.
What other ad based wifi access projects have there been? I know of ones at hotels that make you pay to access and still display ads, but I don't travel enough to see these other free ones. What problems do they have? Given Google's normal approach to ads though, I think they'll be able to find a way to make the ads as unannoying as possible. Unless they make you install some client to access the network (which also displays ads) in which case they can keep their wifi... I don't like installing anything unless it does something for me--and doesn't just give me access to something, but I would still trust such an install from Google a lot more than a similar one from Yahoo... I, personally, have thought of Yahoo! as a spyware company since the early Yahoo! toolbars...
I've read that the materials in batteries from hybrids are almost all reusable/recyclable after the battery dies out. As long as non reusable/recyclbale materials aren't just dumped into the soil or water (or foreign countries) and are disposed in some environmentally friendly way then I don't see a problem with the dead batteries.
Not really, that still has the same issues with relying mostly on the gas engine on the high way. Ideally, the gas should only kick in if the batteries are almost dead. I drive almost exclusively on the highway (minus my drive to and from the highway), so I rarely go 35 or less (and of course trips to the grocery and stuff--but even then the speed limit on most roads is 40+).
Well, my longest car trip was to El Segundo, CA (from Chicago, IL) for summer work. And since I'm under 25, I have to pay a premium to rent a car. Plus, being there for the whole summer, it would be impractical for me to rent a car for the entire summer--rather high cost. My relatives are in Houston, TX which is a decent drive, but not so far that I feel required to fly (it can easily be driven in a day--especially if you have a second driver). Flying would cost more, and sometimes you have to haul stuff along with you that is inconvenient to bring on a flight (and would only add to the extra cost of flying if you mail it instead). Plus, who wants to deal with the TSA?
That would work too. I'm used to cars that get 400+ miles on a tank though(my first car was a 4 cylinder that went about 300-500 per tank--16 or 18 gallon tank, I forget--and now I have a Civic Hybrid that I get 450-600 miles per tank--12 gallon tank), but as long as I can charge quickly, 300 miles will work. The other option is that trailer option that your sibling poster mentioned. However, that could pose a problem if you need to have a trailer hauling stuff as well. But still, 300 miles and a way to keep it charged or a way to quickly recharge would be the edge it needs to make this a reality (as long as the price isn't WAY over the cost of a similarly equipped gas car). Then all we need are all nuclear power plants and the polution levels should decrease dramatically.
I was going to point that out too, and 300 miles is fine for normal daily commute--even for a couple days. The problem comes in when you need to make a longer trip--like a vacation or visiting relatives. What we need is a hybrid car where the electric engine is the primary one and gas (or hydrogen) is the backup, rather than the other way around (since I'm pretty sure all hybrids right now depend on gas if you're going over 35 or something like that). Or if they can get an electric car that can do 600+ miles per charge (although I've done trips where I've driven a good 800 to almost 1,000 miles before finally calling it a day... but still, I'd be willing to call it a day at 600 or so miles for a longer trip). And then, of course, hotels would also need to provide some means of cars recharging over night...
I'm not denying it's a pandemic. I'm simply stating that it's not even close to as widespread/as many deaths as the media was predicting in the 80's. I may have been born in '84, but that doesn't mean I haven't watched some of the old movies/news reels on the topic.
I'm not saying don't do anything about it. I think researchers should work on a cure. The only thing the government can (and should do) is fund said researchers--and all the other sciences. If you want to believe in God taking care of it all, then you go ahead and lie down like that. And then he'll strike you with a thunderbolt. All I'm saying is that the media blows things way out of proportion and that the average person need not worry about it until such times as something actually happens (unless they want to donate more money to research, in which case that would be fine). And if you want to shoot your neighbors and take their food and water, feel free to, but I don't see how that would help you cure or prevent getting a disease that's spreading. Even if you kill every living creature within the area, a virus may still spread to you (it could be in that food that you steal from your neighbor). So, really, you could just be dooming yourself and I wouldn't advise such actions.
I wasn't saying don't research cures--by all means do that. I was speaking more in terms of the general public. And all of those examples, the largest death toll was still "only" 50 million or so world wide. That's a far cry from shutting down 3/4 of the US and such that the media predicts. I'm not saying it's not bad, I'm just saying it's blown totally out of proportion. If the media were right on even half their claims, the human race would already be extinct...
Exactly. The media is always blowing something out of proportion as the next big threat to humanity (or the US):
-Killer bees (there was a movie on this one too)
-SARS
-AIDs (several movies)
-Terrorism
-Anthrax (related to the above)
-Small Pox coming back
-Etc.
While they're all threats, they aren't just going to all of a sudden just break out all over the place. The media loves to feed off our fears--as it sells almost as well as sex. When it explodes, THEN freak out about it, but until then enjoy life.
I don't subscribe to Netflix, although I did subscribe to one of their competitors for awhile--$10/month for 2 or 3 games or DVDs at a time. Cheaper than a start up cost of $50 and $15/month. A movie is only $10 (at higher ticket prices--it's actually $7.50 by me), unless you include snacks, which aren't necessary and can easily be snuck into the theater. So while I agree that maybe I'm not the target market of traditional MMORPGs, I disagree that they are a cheap form of entertainment. Gaming is a cheap form of entertainment--40+ hours of entertainment for $20-50 (now up to $60). That's almost a dollar an hour. $200/year to play an MMORPG for 10-20 hours is admittedly fairly reasonable, but I still don't approve of the business model of charging twice. I mean you can't even play the software that you are required to buy without also then purchasing a membership. I mean sure they give you 1-2 months "free", but I still think it's a terrible policy. Would you buy a bike or a football or whatever other item that required you to pay a monthly fee just to use it? I understand that there are maintenance costs and all that, but I still think it's highway robbery. And it's not that I don't like MMORPGs (although I will admit I think most of them suck--pointless level treadmill), but there are some that I think are GREAT due to the politics and social systems built in/form within them. I just choose to vote with my wallet and not support a business plan that I think is unfair to the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that seriously the PS3 logo? I had never seen it before... I was assuming it was just going to be the same old logo with a 3 at the end. If that's the logo, then that's just BAD. What the hell were they on at the time?
From what I've read about the press conference (and from the various opinion pieces I've read on it), it seems that Sony has grown overconfident--and with over 65% market share, can you blame them? Sony is just as much a marketing company as they are a technology company and they know that for much of the mass market of video games, Playstation is the only thing these people know because to them Sony is like a god. They also know that the mass market goes "ooo, look how powerful" and buys it (*cough*PSP*cough*). However, that's the AMERICAN mass market. If the PSP has taught them nothing, then they should know now that having a "do everything" device that's "more powerful" than the competition isn't enough. Of course, maybe that's why they "stole" the motion detection from the Wii? Any way, it seems like a fumble (but more than likely not a crucial one). If Nintendo and/or Microsoft can pull some good tricks out of their hats, then Sony might at least drop down to less than 50% of the market share (and you better believe I hope they do--as this overconfidence is bad for the industry).
I'm not opposed to other people participating in BlueSecurity--I think that if that's how they feel they should fix the problem then they should do it. It's just that my personal belief is that arms races lead to nothing but trouble for both sides (see the Cold War). Sure, they may eventually end, but even if they do both sides are "broke" (see the US debt--sure we've always had one, but it was nowhere near as bad until the Cold War). It's the same thing with the war on terror, it's just one upping each other and trying to anticipate the other person. Plus, even if you shut down a few spammers, there will be more spammers (or they'll find another unseedy business to get in to--like spyware--and I prefer spam over spyware). That's not to say this won't eventually work, but I just think it's just going to aggrevate spammers and lead to problems (and not just for the BlueSecurity members).
As I replied to your sibling post, it all just seems like an arms race to me. I just filter the spam out. No reason to go through it. Sure, an occasional rogue spam message will get through, but not enough to bug me that much. And I've also learned to be careful about who/where I put certain e-mail addresses (and like probably most /.ers--I have one e-mail just for "free registrations" that I have set up just to take in all the junk). I support blue security (and I can understand why people would want to be a member of their service); however, I (personally) do not wish to engage in an arms race against spammers as (at the moment) I am fine with just filtering them out.
Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I was under the (mis)understanding that multiple e-mails may be sent to the spammer and/or the sponsor regarding the issue. It just all sort of seems like an arms race--and we all know those never end well... Personally, filtering works well enough for me (a very rare spam will get through GMail on occasion--less than once a month; whereas my college e-mail address where I manually set the filters gets about 1 per month, but I've shared that e-mail with a lot more places/businesses).
Because at one point I actually enjoyed Japanes RPG's (such as Lunar, Grandia, FF, etc.) I would probably still play some of them on occasion, but my free time is spent on other things now (and different types of games).
Is it a bad thing if people have to take a rest every hour (or few hours)? I see that as a good thing as it'll help people "addicted" to a particular game do something else (for at least a few minutes). I'll admit that I've had that "game addiction" in the past where I've stayed up for more hours than I should have trying to beat a game/boss/whatever. Taking a rest probably would have been beneficial. And any added excercise is also bound to be beneficial. But really... who cares about all that? What matters is whether or not the games will be more fun/open new possibilities because of the new controller. I think it will.
You also need to take into account that when the original argument was made (for x386) processors, people did fewer things with their computers. Now though, people (even casual computer users) do very resource intensive tasks on computers--from 3D games to video rendering and editing. Computers are no longer "just tools", they are now multimedia hubs (possibly even more so than the TV--for some at least).
Amen to that. I had never heard of BlueSecurity before this fiasco, but now that I've heard how much trouble they can give these jackass spammers and that they stick to their guns (no matter the cost), I'd like to support them in some way (although I probably won't join the network, as I don't agree with their methods of stopping spam).
But then you'd have issues with performance and such. The reason the current items are in the kernel to begin with have to do with the need for them to be able to easily communicate with one another and their need to be able to have system override access to all resources. It does make his claim more valid, but it's still not a good idea in practice (unless you're primary focus for an OS is security rather than performance). I also still think that this method would make the various "kernel" components harder to manage/patch--I put kernel in quotes because the parts that would be moved to user land would still be part of the kernel to me (even if not physically).
This sounds great in theory, but in reality it would be impractical. 2.5 million lines of code handling all of the necessary things the Linux Kernel handles really isn't that bad. Adding compartmentalization into the mix will only make it more complicated and make it more likely for a hole to spring somewhere in the "hull"--maybe only one compartment will be flooded then, but the hole may be harder to patch. However, I wouldn't rule compartmentalization out completely, but it should be understood that doing so will increase the complexity/size and not necessarily lower the size/complexity. And isn't Windows XP or Vista like 30 million lines of code (or more)? That's a LOT more than double the size of the Linux kernel...
This is a very good and well thought out response. Fairly convincing as well (sources would have been nice, but are not necessary since the facts you cited have been pointed out in other posts and I've heard them before). However, I still don't think it will be as large of a disaster as the media predicts. Even if 100 million people die (world wide), that's still a small fraction of the world population of over 6 Billion. Is it tragic? Yes. Will it be a huge catastrophe to the country/world/human population? I don't think so. Should we prepare for it? Of course! I don't think researchers and such should ignore the situation. I just don't think the general populous needs to freak out about it (at least not yet). Will I blame the government if they aren't prepared for this? No. I didn't blame them for not being prepared for Hurricane Katrina, so why would I blame them for this? They're response was a bit half-assed, but there's only so much they could have done (doesn't matter if it would have been a Democrat or Liberterian or whoever else in the White House--there are limitations to what our bloated government can do). Disasters happen and they're unpredicatble (to a degree), so why point the finger of blame? Blame is just an excuse to get out of doing things to fix things yourself.
I don't know much about the manufacturing/recycling polution levels, but that is a great point... But I still think stopping the burning of all fossil fuels will reduce pollution more than manufacturing/recylcing of batteries will produce (but I wouldn't know for sure).
I meant adware company, not spyware, although I wouldn't put that past them as well... Google is more likely the spyware company (gathering information from everything you do...), but I still use them--they have great products... even if they are evil and will eventually own my soul... But at least Google's ads aren't annoying (yet)!
What other ad based wifi access projects have there been? I know of ones at hotels that make you pay to access and still display ads, but I don't travel enough to see these other free ones. What problems do they have? Given Google's normal approach to ads though, I think they'll be able to find a way to make the ads as unannoying as possible. Unless they make you install some client to access the network (which also displays ads) in which case they can keep their wifi... I don't like installing anything unless it does something for me--and doesn't just give me access to something, but I would still trust such an install from Google a lot more than a similar one from Yahoo... I, personally, have thought of Yahoo! as a spyware company since the early Yahoo! toolbars...
I've read that the materials in batteries from hybrids are almost all reusable/recyclable after the battery dies out. As long as non reusable/recyclbale materials aren't just dumped into the soil or water (or foreign countries) and are disposed in some environmentally friendly way then I don't see a problem with the dead batteries.
Not really, that still has the same issues with relying mostly on the gas engine on the high way. Ideally, the gas should only kick in if the batteries are almost dead. I drive almost exclusively on the highway (minus my drive to and from the highway), so I rarely go 35 or less (and of course trips to the grocery and stuff--but even then the speed limit on most roads is 40+).
Well, my longest car trip was to El Segundo, CA (from Chicago, IL) for summer work. And since I'm under 25, I have to pay a premium to rent a car. Plus, being there for the whole summer, it would be impractical for me to rent a car for the entire summer--rather high cost. My relatives are in Houston, TX which is a decent drive, but not so far that I feel required to fly (it can easily be driven in a day--especially if you have a second driver). Flying would cost more, and sometimes you have to haul stuff along with you that is inconvenient to bring on a flight (and would only add to the extra cost of flying if you mail it instead). Plus, who wants to deal with the TSA?
That would work too. I'm used to cars that get 400+ miles on a tank though(my first car was a 4 cylinder that went about 300-500 per tank--16 or 18 gallon tank, I forget--and now I have a Civic Hybrid that I get 450-600 miles per tank--12 gallon tank), but as long as I can charge quickly, 300 miles will work. The other option is that trailer option that your sibling poster mentioned. However, that could pose a problem if you need to have a trailer hauling stuff as well. But still, 300 miles and a way to keep it charged or a way to quickly recharge would be the edge it needs to make this a reality (as long as the price isn't WAY over the cost of a similarly equipped gas car). Then all we need are all nuclear power plants and the polution levels should decrease dramatically.
I was going to point that out too, and 300 miles is fine for normal daily commute--even for a couple days. The problem comes in when you need to make a longer trip--like a vacation or visiting relatives. What we need is a hybrid car where the electric engine is the primary one and gas (or hydrogen) is the backup, rather than the other way around (since I'm pretty sure all hybrids right now depend on gas if you're going over 35 or something like that). Or if they can get an electric car that can do 600+ miles per charge (although I've done trips where I've driven a good 800 to almost 1,000 miles before finally calling it a day... but still, I'd be willing to call it a day at 600 or so miles for a longer trip). And then, of course, hotels would also need to provide some means of cars recharging over night...
I'm not denying it's a pandemic. I'm simply stating that it's not even close to as widespread/as many deaths as the media was predicting in the 80's. I may have been born in '84, but that doesn't mean I haven't watched some of the old movies/news reels on the topic.
I'm not saying don't do anything about it. I think researchers should work on a cure. The only thing the government can (and should do) is fund said researchers--and all the other sciences. If you want to believe in God taking care of it all, then you go ahead and lie down like that. And then he'll strike you with a thunderbolt. All I'm saying is that the media blows things way out of proportion and that the average person need not worry about it until such times as something actually happens (unless they want to donate more money to research, in which case that would be fine). And if you want to shoot your neighbors and take their food and water, feel free to, but I don't see how that would help you cure or prevent getting a disease that's spreading. Even if you kill every living creature within the area, a virus may still spread to you (it could be in that food that you steal from your neighbor). So, really, you could just be dooming yourself and I wouldn't advise such actions.
I wasn't saying don't research cures--by all means do that. I was speaking more in terms of the general public. And all of those examples, the largest death toll was still "only" 50 million or so world wide. That's a far cry from shutting down 3/4 of the US and such that the media predicts. I'm not saying it's not bad, I'm just saying it's blown totally out of proportion. If the media were right on even half their claims, the human race would already be extinct...
-Killer bees (there was a movie on this one too)
-SARS
-AIDs (several movies)
-Terrorism
-Anthrax (related to the above)
-Small Pox coming back
-Etc.
While they're all threats, they aren't just going to all of a sudden just break out all over the place. The media loves to feed off our fears--as it sells almost as well as sex. When it explodes, THEN freak out about it, but until then enjoy life.
I don't subscribe to Netflix, although I did subscribe to one of their competitors for awhile--$10/month for 2 or 3 games or DVDs at a time. Cheaper than a start up cost of $50 and $15/month. A movie is only $10 (at higher ticket prices--it's actually $7.50 by me), unless you include snacks, which aren't necessary and can easily be snuck into the theater. So while I agree that maybe I'm not the target market of traditional MMORPGs, I disagree that they are a cheap form of entertainment. Gaming is a cheap form of entertainment--40+ hours of entertainment for $20-50 (now up to $60). That's almost a dollar an hour. $200/year to play an MMORPG for 10-20 hours is admittedly fairly reasonable, but I still don't approve of the business model of charging twice. I mean you can't even play the software that you are required to buy without also then purchasing a membership. I mean sure they give you 1-2 months "free", but I still think it's a terrible policy. Would you buy a bike or a football or whatever other item that required you to pay a monthly fee just to use it? I understand that there are maintenance costs and all that, but I still think it's highway robbery. And it's not that I don't like MMORPGs (although I will admit I think most of them suck--pointless level treadmill), but there are some that I think are GREAT due to the politics and social systems built in/form within them. I just choose to vote with my wallet and not support a business plan that I think is unfair to the consumer.