There's that, but there's also the poor packaging in terms of informing buyers that this unit isn't a full PS3, it's missing otheros or the ability to play PS2 games or whatever. I genuinely feel for people who bought a unit with the otheros feature only to have that taken. But, the removal of features without any markings on the box to indicate the lack of functionality is pretty disgusting IMHO.
No, it's more like buying a girl a 4 kt diamond ring then later replacing it with a 3kt diamond if she wants you to clean the dishes and explaining it to her that this is because some other woman down the street only has a 3 kt diamond ring.
Price yes, but OS is hardly insurmountable, there are several utilities that will do that for you. Plus, consoles today are essentially just stripped down and optimized computers, it's been quite a while since a console really differed by that much from a computer. I mean hell you could even load Linux on a PS3 early on.
As for development costs, the PC market is huge compared with the console market. There's plenty of money in PC gaming if they wouldn't go to such lengths to piss off PC gamers.
Mostly yes, they used to do that sort of thing back when consoles were actual consoles, these days not so much. Sega was probably the worst offender with both the SegaCD and the 32x, but Nintendo would sometimes add extra chips to cartridges to allow games to surpass what the console could otherwise do.
As an unhappy PS3 owner, my suggestion for Sony would be more or less spend the time figuring out how to get that game controller lodged good in their asses for releasing multiple PS3s that weren't complete and removing features after they had been sold.
That's the thing that often times gets missed, particularly in the American news media, just because people are arguing about something doesn't mean that there's a legitimate controversy, sometimes you have somebody that's just extremely stubborn. At this point there's absolutely no reason to believe that supply side economics works outside of a few niche situations, and yet there's always this huge "controversy" about making millionaires pay their share of the taxes.
Likewise there are very few climatologists that still dismiss climate change as real and man made, the real controversy there is how much of it is the result of our activities and how much of it is natural. And then there's the other question about how much we ought to do about it as we're probably going to be able to adapt to it over all.
Because we are, I know of several projects to tap landfills for methane that have been in production for a while. However as more cities mandate composing and recycling there's going to be less and less to be harvested as there's going to be less and less organic material in the garbage.
One thing I do note was the notion that two years ago we should all have been skeptical. I don't believe that, the science at that point was already pretty solid. At least solid enough to justify taking action. We wouldn't have to have it right if we would have started acting conservatively and erred on the side of caution, which means cutting down on emissions when the evidence started to suggest a problem.
Intelligent design requires there to be a God of some sort to work, until the proponents can propose a way of testing that portion of the "theory" it won't be science. Same problem with creationism, no testable hypothesis.
That's actually not true, it's been known for thousands of years that the world isn't flat. By the time there were people that could reasonably be referred to as scientists the world had been known to be round for many centuries.
Creationism can't be proven, but over time evolution becomes more and more solid. What scientists are quibbling about with evolution is mostly just details at this point, I'm not aware of any scientists that don't buy into evolution on the whole. Hell at this point even the Catholic Church supports a version of it.
Granted iPads do other things as well, but they aren't anywhere near good enough with battery life to compete with a book. I think by the time my nephew is in college in like 16 years or so it will be a much more reasonable proposition in that regards, but for the time being, the book is probably better for studying.
I personally prefer ebooks for most things these days as it means that I no longer have to decide whether to store or sell my books, but buying an iPad is going a bit far IMHO.
Yes, but PDFs are terrible on them typically. PDFs were designed so that a document would look the same and be printed the same in various places. The problem is that they do reflow the text and options for getting them to fit on the page aren't good. You can either scale them or you can zoom in and scroll around, neither of which is particularly desirable.
I take it you haven't spent much time around women. Understandable, I doubt they visit your basement very often.
Trust me, I've known enough women over the years to realize that they're at least as sexist as men are and they engage in quite a bit of sexual innuendo and potty humor, they just generally don't do so around men, as much, perhaps.
As for being arrogant and self centered, get married, let's see how long that attitude lasts.
I mostly agree, however I am running into more and more women these days that consider a reversal of the status quo to be unacceptable. It gives me some degree of hope that with proper education about what the reality is that they'll recognize that it's not the same world it was in the '60s and earlier, that there are areas in which women do have an unjustifiable advantage.
I do have a problem with those types of schemes. It's one thing to lean on men to behaved in a civilized way towards women; or really people in general to treat each other with respect, but women in America are already way ahead of men in most areas with a growing gap.
What makes this complicated is that the strategy is presumably going to have to be global and that means that in some areas there'll be women with more rights than men and in most areas it will be the reverse.
Providing for the artist's family. Mark Twain was very concerned through much of his life about his works going into the public domain and having his family be in dire straights as a result. It happened to be a moot point as he outlived his wife and daughter, but it was something that he was concerned with. That was prior to social security, but even in the days of social security the amount isn't going to be enough to live with any comfort until one does die.
The problem with trying to minimize the period of time is that it's complete nonsense. Not all forms of artwork take a similar amount of time to exploit. A sculpture sold by a sculptor isn't going to continue to bring in profits. However a screenwriter might take years to sell a screenplay during which time other types of artists could have been pro fitting from their works.
The range of lengths I support is pretty moderate, it gives the artist plenty of time to profit from the work while still getting works into the public domain in a reasonable period of time. Trying to figure out how to shorten it further just screws over the people that create that work that you probably admire.
It's not the level of detail, it's other things like the lack of a satellite view and how Google Maps has translations of place names in China whereas OSM doesn't. Satellite view doesn't seem to be important until you find yourself trying to figure out where you're going and you realize that knowing what things look like roughly is a huge help.
The DoJ doesn't have to understand the technical details, the DoJ only has to understand the effect that a new filesystem has on interoperability. Well that and MS' patent abuse to keep people from using previous filesystems without paying royalties.
Right, and that's why you want to get suits against you dismissed with prejudice and ones that you initiate dismissed without prejudice if things aren't going to go to completion.
Sigh, there's no reason to abolish patents and copyrights in general. Scale copyrights back to say life + 20 or perhaps 28 + 28 and remove the government from enforcing it and we'd be mostly there.
Patents are a bit more complicated, ban business methods and software patents. Fund the USPTO through taxation, they aren't going to do their jobs well as long as their paycheck depends upon volume of patents granted.
Maybe back in the '60s and '70s or places that aren't America. But in America they've been focusing on getting students to college for so long that those sorts of programs have largely been dropped for lack of time and interest. Not to mention funding.
Because this is what a trade school is, they educate people to take up some sort of trade. Many developed countries, at least in Europe have schools like this all over the place for students that aren't considered college material.
It didn't used to be like that until we decided that we had the worst educational system in the world. The obvious solution to which was more standardized testing and holding people back who didn't do well on the tests. Which is great, because I know if I have kids I'm going to be very concerned that they might have time to do actually studying in school.
Slashdot Mirror
There's that, but there's also the poor packaging in terms of informing buyers that this unit isn't a full PS3, it's missing otheros or the ability to play PS2 games or whatever. I genuinely feel for people who bought a unit with the otheros feature only to have that taken. But, the removal of features without any markings on the box to indicate the lack of functionality is pretty disgusting IMHO.
No, it's more like buying a girl a 4 kt diamond ring then later replacing it with a 3kt diamond if she wants you to clean the dishes and explaining it to her that this is because some other woman down the street only has a 3 kt diamond ring.
Price yes, but OS is hardly insurmountable, there are several utilities that will do that for you. Plus, consoles today are essentially just stripped down and optimized computers, it's been quite a while since a console really differed by that much from a computer. I mean hell you could even load Linux on a PS3 early on.
As for development costs, the PC market is huge compared with the console market. There's plenty of money in PC gaming if they wouldn't go to such lengths to piss off PC gamers.
Mostly yes, they used to do that sort of thing back when consoles were actual consoles, these days not so much. Sega was probably the worst offender with both the SegaCD and the 32x, but Nintendo would sometimes add extra chips to cartridges to allow games to surpass what the console could otherwise do.
As an unhappy PS3 owner, my suggestion for Sony would be more or less spend the time figuring out how to get that game controller lodged good in their asses for releasing multiple PS3s that weren't complete and removing features after they had been sold.
That's the thing that often times gets missed, particularly in the American news media, just because people are arguing about something doesn't mean that there's a legitimate controversy, sometimes you have somebody that's just extremely stubborn. At this point there's absolutely no reason to believe that supply side economics works outside of a few niche situations, and yet there's always this huge "controversy" about making millionaires pay their share of the taxes.
Likewise there are very few climatologists that still dismiss climate change as real and man made, the real controversy there is how much of it is the result of our activities and how much of it is natural. And then there's the other question about how much we ought to do about it as we're probably going to be able to adapt to it over all.
Because we are, I know of several projects to tap landfills for methane that have been in production for a while. However as more cities mandate composing and recycling there's going to be less and less to be harvested as there's going to be less and less organic material in the garbage.
One thing I do note was the notion that two years ago we should all have been skeptical. I don't believe that, the science at that point was already pretty solid. At least solid enough to justify taking action. We wouldn't have to have it right if we would have started acting conservatively and erred on the side of caution, which means cutting down on emissions when the evidence started to suggest a problem.
Intelligent design requires there to be a God of some sort to work, until the proponents can propose a way of testing that portion of the "theory" it won't be science. Same problem with creationism, no testable hypothesis.
That's actually not true, it's been known for thousands of years that the world isn't flat. By the time there were people that could reasonably be referred to as scientists the world had been known to be round for many centuries.
Creationism can't be proven, but over time evolution becomes more and more solid. What scientists are quibbling about with evolution is mostly just details at this point, I'm not aware of any scientists that don't buy into evolution on the whole. Hell at this point even the Catholic Church supports a version of it.
Granted iPads do other things as well, but they aren't anywhere near good enough with battery life to compete with a book. I think by the time my nephew is in college in like 16 years or so it will be a much more reasonable proposition in that regards, but for the time being, the book is probably better for studying.
I personally prefer ebooks for most things these days as it means that I no longer have to decide whether to store or sell my books, but buying an iPad is going a bit far IMHO.
Editors frequently freelance as it is. It's mostly just small and medium sized publishing houses that employ their own editors.
Yes, but PDFs are terrible on them typically. PDFs were designed so that a document would look the same and be printed the same in various places. The problem is that they do reflow the text and options for getting them to fit on the page aren't good. You can either scale them or you can zoom in and scroll around, neither of which is particularly desirable.
You know that an industry is way overcharging if buying a $500 tablet to buy cheaper books is a desirable option.
I take it you haven't spent much time around women. Understandable, I doubt they visit your basement very often.
Trust me, I've known enough women over the years to realize that they're at least as sexist as men are and they engage in quite a bit of sexual innuendo and potty humor, they just generally don't do so around men, as much, perhaps.
As for being arrogant and self centered, get married, let's see how long that attitude lasts.
I mostly agree, however I am running into more and more women these days that consider a reversal of the status quo to be unacceptable. It gives me some degree of hope that with proper education about what the reality is that they'll recognize that it's not the same world it was in the '60s and earlier, that there are areas in which women do have an unjustifiable advantage.
I do have a problem with those types of schemes. It's one thing to lean on men to behaved in a civilized way towards women; or really people in general to treat each other with respect, but women in America are already way ahead of men in most areas with a growing gap.
What makes this complicated is that the strategy is presumably going to have to be global and that means that in some areas there'll be women with more rights than men and in most areas it will be the reverse.
It would be completely tasteless, but I'd love to see the video with MLK in whiteface.
Providing for the artist's family. Mark Twain was very concerned through much of his life about his works going into the public domain and having his family be in dire straights as a result. It happened to be a moot point as he outlived his wife and daughter, but it was something that he was concerned with. That was prior to social security, but even in the days of social security the amount isn't going to be enough to live with any comfort until one does die.
The problem with trying to minimize the period of time is that it's complete nonsense. Not all forms of artwork take a similar amount of time to exploit. A sculpture sold by a sculptor isn't going to continue to bring in profits. However a screenwriter might take years to sell a screenplay during which time other types of artists could have been pro fitting from their works.
The range of lengths I support is pretty moderate, it gives the artist plenty of time to profit from the work while still getting works into the public domain in a reasonable period of time. Trying to figure out how to shorten it further just screws over the people that create that work that you probably admire.
It's not the level of detail, it's other things like the lack of a satellite view and how Google Maps has translations of place names in China whereas OSM doesn't. Satellite view doesn't seem to be important until you find yourself trying to figure out where you're going and you realize that knowing what things look like roughly is a huge help.
The DoJ doesn't have to understand the technical details, the DoJ only has to understand the effect that a new filesystem has on interoperability. Well that and MS' patent abuse to keep people from using previous filesystems without paying royalties.
Right, and that's why you want to get suits against you dismissed with prejudice and ones that you initiate dismissed without prejudice if things aren't going to go to completion.
Sigh, there's no reason to abolish patents and copyrights in general. Scale copyrights back to say life + 20 or perhaps 28 + 28 and remove the government from enforcing it and we'd be mostly there.
Patents are a bit more complicated, ban business methods and software patents. Fund the USPTO through taxation, they aren't going to do their jobs well as long as their paycheck depends upon volume of patents granted.
Maybe back in the '60s and '70s or places that aren't America. But in America they've been focusing on getting students to college for so long that those sorts of programs have largely been dropped for lack of time and interest. Not to mention funding.
Because this is what a trade school is, they educate people to take up some sort of trade. Many developed countries, at least in Europe have schools like this all over the place for students that aren't considered college material.
It didn't used to be like that until we decided that we had the worst educational system in the world. The obvious solution to which was more standardized testing and holding people back who didn't do well on the tests. Which is great, because I know if I have kids I'm going to be very concerned that they might have time to do actually studying in school.