Unless they start producing these things in the shape of imaginary animals, this concept will dry up and blow away a few hours from now. Kids like pokemon because of the creature angle. If you were to replace the creatues with, say, all of the US presidents, leaving everything else the same, the pokemon phenomenon would have been a non-event.
Also, since I *know* at least half of the slashdot crowd initially read the headline the same way I did, I'll be the first to make the obvious "When I first read that..." comment: When I first read that, I thought we were talking about crypto keys. You know, collect keys, see who's is stronger, etc. Now *that* I could dig:
"Hey honey, went down to the comic store and bought some new BreaKey cards. I have a good feeling about this new 256-bit DES Charmander key I got. Let's battle!... Oops, I guess I should have waited until it evolved into an AES Charizard."
Amen, brother. And MS will continue to have a noxious effect on the entire gaming industry. Don't expect it to end with Bungie, by any means.
For those of us who don't like MS and won't own an XBox, the fact that we missed out on the whole Halo thing is not even the full extent of the problem. This business of console makers buying large, successful developers/publishers outright... that's a road we don't want to go down. Not only will it inevitably affect the creativity of indie development houses (which is reason enough to avoid the situation), but on the console side of things it's worse. One is locked out of all future games from those developers unless he/she owns the proper console.
So not only did I miss the Halo phenomenon, sadly, I will also be missing the sequel---along with any other quality games the Bungie crew happen dream up. The above poster is absolutely right. Releasing Halo on the PC at this point is simply an insult. He's also right in pointing out that the glory days of Bungie are now behind them, with the acquisition virtually guaranteeing that.
As a momentary exercise in completely extraneous hypotheticals, and to drive the point home with much more force (given the audience), imagine for a moment that MS had decided to acquire Squaresoft instead of Bungie... *shuter*
First of all, why does someone with such a wit as this not have a persistent account on Slashdot? Oh wait... that question almost answers itself, doesn't it?
(Take Two:)
First of all, please set up a persistent account. Tracking users of obvious wit increases my/. enjoyment factor tremendously.
Secondly, I can't help but feel that the "line the kitty box" option has been shortchanged here. Insofar as pattern recognition factors heavily into any modern IQ test, it seems to me that anyone identifing this "RIAA Amnesty" bit as being vaguely similar---in smell and appearance---to animal excrement ought to be awarded a slightly higher score than someone who failed to bubble in a response by simply ignoring the whole thing. (Such an individual should also be commended, by the way, for essentially recycling their garbage.)
Finally, I would also like to propose an option resulting in a score of 55: "Send in your notarized form with photo ID. Include, also, a photo of a short bus with a caption reading, 'This is how I get to school in the mornings'."
Iodine-129: "You expect me to talk, Mr. Ledingham?"
Ledingham: "No, Mr. I-129, I expect you to die."
Note: Inexplicable urge to change the last word to "dye" overcome by recalling the first mantra of humor: "Pun is the death of wit... Pun is the death of wit."
I'm unaware of any company that would shortchange the customer in their speed to get the software to market.
And this from a spokesman for the "Software and Information Industry Association," whoever the hell that is.
What the article left out:
djNocturne, spokesman for the Selective Amnesia Prevention Society, was taken aback by such a profoundly silly statement. Ultimately, he questioned the SIIA's decision to hire a spokesman with such a debilitating condition as SAS, or "Selective Amnesia Syndrome."
"I'm not saying that people with acute SAS should be denied the opportunity to make a living. I'm simply saying that some jobs require more information retention than others, and that people suffering from SAS might not be the best candidates for such a position."
The good DJ then proceeded to recount the tale of how Microsoft won the Word Processing war back in era of DOS and Win 3.1. He explained that MS Word eventually defeated WordPerfect---which was a much more advanced product at the time---by constantly pushing out buggy releases which slowly gained market share; not by fixing any identified bugs/problems, resulting in a more stable and usable product, but rather by virtue of adding "slick" new features at the expense of overall quality.
Halfway through this explanation, however, the SIIA spokesman became distracted by a shiny object in the distance and simply wandered away.
A statement announcing the event said that SCO executives will provide details on "opportunities for Linux customers."
My Hotmail inbox, ten minutes later:
From: SCO Nigeria
Subject: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
I am making this contact with profound interest, having considered you highly reputable and capable of assistance to my understated business proposal. I am Darl C. McBride from the Democratic Republic of SCO. On trust and in utmost confidence, I am establishing this relationship with you in benevolent spirit as to an opportunity rightly at hand.
In a closed-door meeting before Caldera's sudden and suspicious death, a Mr. Ransom Love disclosed to me certain facts and secrets regarding IP which was secretly deposited in a codebase, buried under a giant "Unix" tree. This issue has been a secret, and I am therefore taking this as an opportunity to enrich and equip myself to face my secret ambition.
All I need now is a reliable partner with whom I can clear and transfer this IP abroad. You shall retain a reasonable percentage of the total value of this IP as your share. I shall count on your indulgence to please keep this information very secret and confidential.
ps: Please henceforth address me as "Dr. Kananga." That is the name I am now using for security reasons.
Okay, I admit it. I had no idea who this Ann Coultier character was. I'd heard the name in passing but couldn't have told you anything about her (broader politics not being something I follow all that closely). I decided to look into it, however, because anyone who would get serious consideration as the desired loser in a one-on-one deathmatch with Hillary Rosen is obviously making some very, very poor decisions in life.
The first thing I landed on was her official site, which begins with what I assume to be her most recent article. It was clear from the very first sentence that I was in for a comedy routine of the highest order:
THE MYTH OF "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I'm not even sure where to begin. First of all, you literary mastermind, try brushing up on your references before you start deploying them. This will save you the deep embarassment of using terms which mean precisely the opposite of what you think they mean. "Orwellian" refers to something perpetrated on the public, not by the public.
Second of all, McCarthyism does not belong in quotes. McCarthyism is a documented fact. I've seen black-and-white footage of the hearings, so unless you believe that this was filmed in a secret warehouse somewhere---by the same evil conspirators that would later fake the moon landing---then what you are really complaining about is the negative historical connotation associated with both the mission and the tactics of the now-defunct Senate Committee on Unamerican Activities. The good news is, either belief effectively qualifies you for an extended "vacation" in a lovely place where you can get some rest, and where the nice men in white coats wheel you over to the window three times a day.
The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism.
I agree. He was so misunderstood. All of those pinko commie bastards who were driven out of work, and subsequently couldn't feed their families, they had it coming, sure enough. People who don't espouse an approved political viewpoint should definitely be systematically cast out and denied a living. This is America, after all, and we don't tolerate that kind of crap in America.
Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.
-1: Flamebait
Slashdot currently has an opening in the exciting field of forum trolling. The available position is that of Troll Project Lead, and the qualified applicant will have 5+ years experience in making extraneous, half-baked comparisons of any opposing viewpoints to Nazi Germany. Knowledge of Natalie Portman and/or grits is a plus.
Other statements which would have qualified as demonstrated trolling prowess:
... they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime of naked and petrified Natalie Portmans, grits not included
I always knew that you pinko Linux faggots were collaborating with commies
"I pushed left, you squirrely piece of shit... left! God and BABY Jesus, I am not playing that entire level again!"
Storm out of the room. Wait at least two minutes (you do have your pride), then slink back in and play that entire level again.
I also recommend a wireless controller. Preferrably one of the more expensive models. Trust me, you're much less tempted to throw a $50 miracle of modern technology into the wall... unless, of course, you decide that it's to blame for the "glitch."
The beauty of the Xbox Live is this: You pay just one fee for services. If every company is hosting on-line play for thier games, you might have to pay several bills to different people.
That's a valid point, but it goes back to my "who do I want getting my money: the consoler or the people who made the game possible" argument. It actually ends up being equally parts simple principle and enlightened self-interest. I do think that the developer/publishers more deserve to have it, but I also believe that the general approach itself will spur more widespread adoption of online console gaming in the long run, and probably more inventive ideas even within that. Left to their own devices, I have to believe that publishers will come up with their own unique implementations of what online gaming entails. It could get quite interesting to see Eidos and Capcom, for example, start trying to one-up each other in terms of feature integration on the servers. With the Xbox Live approach, they don't have nearly the same amount of creative license.
This is all just one man's opinion, of course. I believe that the long-term benefits of a more wide-open approach outweigh the minor hassle of making separate payments to different companies, but other people might just disagree with me and decide on the ultimate simplicity of the Xbox approach. All I can really do is try and explain why, in my opinion, the community would be better off siding with Sony on this one, and hopefully to convince enough people through valid arguments. As with most things in life, there's some room for respectful disagreement.
... And quite possibly cheaper in the long run
That's another valid point, and unfortunately probably the only one I can't unequivocally counter. (Well, I could, but I would lose all credibility when the astute reader suddenly realized that I was spinning horse shit into gold:). As you point out, that particular issue is really a big numbers game, and the final answer will vary from person to person. I'm not even going to pretend to bust out pseudo-statistics, because it obviously comes down to simply which games one will find themselves playing and to what extent. All I can really say is that from what I know about the new online-compatibile games currently in the works for both platforms, the line-ups are equally good, so it will probably come down to individual tastes. Of course, if one of the consoles... *cough*likePS2*cough*... were to detect a sudden influx of gamers and begin to see the scales tip in their direction, I'm sure that their online library would get real diverse, real quick;)
I could just be talking out of my ass though. But, this is/.
Nah... those are both legit points. Let's keep that strictly between you and me, though. Don't tell anyone I said that =)
I essentially misspoke here. My comments were only directed at the entertainment division, in general, and the gaming division in particular (which is pretty much an island unto itself). I won't lie. Sony the corporation does tend to shank it quite a bit on market management... although I still stand by my "remarkably nimble" comment, as making quick market adjustments---when they want to---isn't their problem.
My take on the gaming industry has always been this: As long as you do right by gamers, you buy yourself a great deal of breathing room in the overall market. You can afford to withstand a few minor misjudgements on the direction of gaming so long as the community still believes in you. Sega is a prime example of a company that gave back every ounce of goodwill they ever earned from the Genesis system, then proceeded make "questionable decisions" their official mission statement. They obviously paid the price for that.
My only point is that Sony is the precise opposite of Sega. They have consistently done right by gamers, in my opinion. Perhaps more impressive is the fact that they haven't even needed that fallback cushion... at least not yet. They've had an enormous library of available titles from the very beginning, and titles to suit a wide variety of gamers. The success of the "Greatest Hit" program, as they implemented it, is widely considered to be one of the more brilliant ideas they've introduced into the industry. For my money, they haven't made a bad call yet, and that in itself is almost unbelievable in the sometimes screwy world of the "throw-every-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" gaming industry.
Sure, someone else might have a different opinion on what officially constitutes a "misstep," but I think that even the harshest PS critic would have to agree that at this point, Sony is by far closest to approaching the elusive "always delivers, every time" label. Microsoft, as a console manufacturer, is far too young to even be considered for that title at this point.
That's actually what I meant by "Sony doesn't stumble." Granted, I should have made clear that what I really meant was, "Sony's gaming division doesn't stumble in delivering the goods." But yes, in terms of mastering the art of graceful stock market strategy, they could definitely use a Prima guide or something. Quick, someone get them a walkthough!... Anyone?...
Ah, so this is how trolls get karma. Now I understand.
You know trolls that post in that much length and detail? Wow. Those must be some pretty dedicated trolls, to spend that much time presenting a rather thorough case on something simply for the sake of getting a rise out of people. And you say that this new breed of troll also seeks to somehow accumulate karma during the process of irritating as many people as possible? That would be a pretty neat trick.
All one has to do is to take deficiencies of something and, after looking at them through fanboy goggles, turn them into strengths.
It's funny that I actually went out of my way to explain in detail why, specifically, I consider the Sony approach to be a better choice for geeks and gamers, yet you simply make vague reference to the "deficiencies" of the design without further explanation.
As I've said, I like my online console capabilities like my OS: flexibile and openly architected. You obviously prefer plus-and-play, and that's fine, but don't kid yourself. I'd wager that most of the (sufficiently knowledgable) gamers out there don't consider the flexibility of not being locked into a single monolithic network to be an inherient "deficiency." Does it require a certain leap of faith in publishers, in that they will have to run good solid networks? Absolutely. Then again, these aren't exactly clueless companies we're talking about. Considering recent history, I'm inclined to give Eidos much better odds than M$ at pulling this off.
Or, if you prefer, consider it from a larger context. Which design do you think will encourage more online gaming innovation: The one where developers get whatever cut M$ decides to give them, or the one where they control their own destiny? If I gave you a cadre of skilled gaming programmers and some start-up capital, then told you to go create a company which produces online console games, which system would you release on?
Okay, so it does take extra hassle to manage your own game network, but when you control the price point and technical aspects on your own terms, you at least have a legitimate shot, if you make good business decisions and hire the right people, to make serious bank. I firmly believe that the Sony method will eventually lead to a more robust innovation. Right now, M$ makes it easy for a gaming shop to write online games by removing the technology barriers of administering the actual network. Like any tech, however, it will evetually become a much more pervasive and widely-understood art. M$ makes it easier for small gaming companies---for now, at least---but Sony makes it infinitely more enticing, in the long run.
Xbox Live has been online since November - how many DoS attacks have you heard about? That's what I thought.
I see. So by examining the architecture of a system and pointing out specific areas of concern from a technical standpoint, I'm engaged in rampant fear-mongering. I didn't suggest that any attack was immenient, nor was I particularly vague on my assessment. I simply pointed out that the obvious: That a single large network is inheriently more susceptible to wider and more crippling attacks than an array of smaller independent networks. But I guess that simply Googling for existing exploits is a sufficient method of doing a security and health assessment of a given network architecture. Damn, I wish I had known that. I wouldn't have wasted time actually using my brain to reason things out for myself. Next time an original thought occurs to me, I'll simply have you Google it for me as the ultimate test of validity.
If you have any actual rebuttals to any of my postulations, or would like to debunk them in any way, I'd be eager to hear it. I'm certainly not claiming any additional knowledge beyond what is publicly available on the subject. No, I'm just a humble developer/admin who knows how to assess possible security concerns when I see them. If I'm missing so
Good point, but online gaming in the console market is finally starting to pick up steam, and will eventually become incredibly profitable. The real question is, for whom? The problem M$ will forever have in winning over online gamers, and the very reason I'm not the least bit concerned about that eventuality, was summarized quite nicely by the man himself:
"Do they [Sony] have a service? Don't they just sell adaptors?"
Once again, in Microsoft's alternate reality, a technology system only achieves a full state of Nirvana once it is controlled front-to-back by a single company. Hmmm... let's see... when I decide to pay for online gaming, do I want the money should go to, a) the console manufacturer, or b) the publisher and/or development company that worked hard to produce the game in the first place? Also, when some bored little teenage malcontent decides to DoS the gaming network using tools some clever jackass wrote and posted online, or do I want it to, a) take out the entire networking capabilities for every online-compatible game I own, or b) the specific network of a single publisher?
Isn't Microsoft that the same company that had both their primary and secondary DNS records on the same Class C at one point? Yeah, I trust them to competently administer a monolithic online console network single-handedly.
The entire issue of the M$ vs. Sony online architectures can be summarized thusly:
M$ alone controls the "Xbox Live" gate. If a publisher wants to add online capabilities into their game, M$ alone will decide how many, or how few, table scraps to throw them from the table of proceeds. They alone will also decide how much you, the gamer, are going to pay them for the privilege of having only one game-network option when you plug an ethernet cable into your XBox. As with anything M$, "ease-of-use" and "reliability" are the primary reasons given for why we should all bow down to a single network.
As this shill correctly points out, Sony just sells an adaptor. That's all. Just the hardware that you need to connect. The gaming servers themselves are independent of Sony Corp. (Actually, they will probably run the networks for their own in-house titles... but then again, so can anyone else.)
Is a system where you simply plug in a cat5 cable, run a little on-screen config form, and then just start sending M$ money the ultimate in ease-of-use? Sure it is... in the same way that Windoze XP is easier for my grandmother to run than Linux. But unless my grandma plans on booting up Halo 2 and dumping a 20-gallon drum w00t-ass on you---and if she is, she certainly hasn't mentioned it to me---then I guess I fail to see a market clammoring for dumbed-down simplicity at the expense of choice and some measure of flexibility.
I, for one, would actually love to see the Xbox continue down this path. It'll send most of the serious gamers (and, by extension, games) over to the online-capable console I actually do own. I'd therefore like to send a shout out to the entire Xbox division. Keep on doing what you do, baby!
While I don't necessarily condone ISOs (the game image kind... Linux ISOs are okay:), I do have to take exception with the idea that they "can and will kill entire formats." To the best of my knowledge, no legitimate contender has ever taken a dive due in significant part to pirating.
True, the DC was clearly the most pillaged console in history, in terms of "purchase-to-pirate" ratio, but such piracy was honestly the least of Sega's concerns by that point (as anyone who owns a DC can likely attest to). The history of Sega had already become a comedy of errors *long* before the DC even shipped. What began with the "Sega CD" simply ended with a bang rather than a whimper. Sega well into the slow burn before the DC was even a a twinkle in their eye, and their eventual exit had very little to do with rampant pirating. It had to do with burning their customers time and again, until even the most ardent loyalists had completely lost faith.
The PS1 is, without a doubt, the single most pirated console in history, in terms of raw numbers, but Sony continues to make bank to this day, and their enormous marketshare lead shows very little sign of abating, even with everything both M$ and Nin can collectively throw at them. Why? Because they know how to play the game (no oun intended). Sony is the diametric opposite of Sega. Sega just couldn't get out of their own way long enough to be successful, regardless of how many chances the were afforded.
Sony, on the other hand, looks bulletproof at this point. Thus far, they've withstood an army pirates, the Nintendo juggernaught, and the most relentless force known to mankind: Bill Gates with his hand out.
Someone recently remarked to me that M$ is now basically adopting one of their favorite tactics: prop a thing up with an endless supply of money and simply play the waiting game. My response was that such a thing will eventually get them ahead of Nin, who is given to occasional stumbles. On the other hand...
Sony doesn't stumble. Period. Sure, go ahead and take that "prevent defense" against the remarkably nimble Sony Corporation. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Right now, M$ is merely trailing, but the writing is on the wall. As the entire XBox Live versus Sony's *much* more publisher-/consumer-friendly approach shows us, M$ is in over their heads here. (Which is amazing, considering how big their heads actually are... *visuals of Bill and Steve on one of those FPS "bighead mode" unlocks* =) I don't think they have the first idea what to do, as it's not a position they're too familiar with.
For the record, I myself have absolutely no idea how I managed to turn a philosophical debate on GC pirating into a Sega-bash/Sony-will-own-M$ doubleheader. That's pretty much where all of my conversations eventually lead these days... even when people ask me about things completely unrelated to gaming;)
[Suddenly counting out my Ridilin pills to make sure I haven't been forgetting to take them...]
I have to go now, though. I need to figure out some obtuse analogy so that I can sneak this M$ vs. Sony tirade in on the next SCO post. I figure I've only got about 45 minutes left.
I actually wrote my own daemon program for that. Using advanced musical "fingerprinting" algorithms, it scans all inbound music files looking for horseshit music. The response mechanism varies according to a predefinied "threat assessment" table.
Upon detecting music which would result in only mild discomfort, the transfer is simply terminated. The next category describes music likely to result in a complete breakdown of whatever lingering faith one might have in humanity, at which point the application panics and erases the entire HD... just to make absolutely sure that not one single bit remains.
The detection of an incoming Celine Dion cut would result in what I like to call "Fourth Horseman Mode." I won't go into specifics, but let's just say that it involves parts borrowed from my microwave, and that everyone within a few square blocks will suffer catastrophic data loss.
Utimately, though, that's a small price to pay for being spared the artistic stupor of contemporary mainstream music. Quite frankly, if Hatch flipped the remote killswitch on your Dion-infested computer, he did you a favor.
For the benefit of any other anonymous German developers planning to get their "uppity" on, a friendly word of advice: Obnoxious corporations are not generally spooked by legal amateur hour; at least not here in the U.S. Although the superfluous footnoting was a nice touch, the overall content just didn't have that certain pedantic... je ne sais quoi.
For future reference, that's just not how you punk a litigious sack of shit like SCO. Instead, think of it as a slightly larger version of Pokemon, only the little buggers suddenly lost their souls! You have to catch your own "Litigimon" to do proper battle. (Also, just like in the cartoon, the more obnoxious the damn thing is, the better... for some reason, those seem to be the most unstoppable.)
Anyway, just a little tough love for any other would-be ballbusters out there. I'm pulling for you, trust me, but you have to do that shit right. If you're gonna to come over here and join our crew, come heavy. Bring a little something besides that weak-ass, cross-continential chest-puffing routine. Above all, never, ever throw like a girl. This is of the utmost importance.
One final piece of advice. Negotiation is an art, and one that requires a certain measure of tactical skill. I'm sad to say, this is not a particular skill you were born with, or otherwise possess. Generally speaking, one doesn't come out of the gate with, "I'm going to sue the PANTS off you... of course, I *could* be talked out of it if you were to stop [insert undesirable behavior here]." Jesus, man... that's not smoove.
In America, first you get their attention, then you get the power, THEN you get women.
"Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add."
Sing it, brother. So essentially, cert-based encryption in the zip format is too much of a moving target to bother posting a complete spec, even a preliminary one, but not enough to prevent you from introducing the feature into your product almost a year ago? Solid.
But is this simply one man's poor choice of words? Maybe he's being quoted out of context. Luckily, another suit quickly steps in to disabuse us of that notion:
But the spec should not come out until a product is done, says Steve Crawford, PKWare's chief marketing officer.
Read: "We can't publish the full details of changes to our open format until our own commercial implementation has gone through a few revs."
Okay, I need everyone who loves to bash Sun's handling of Java to line up on the left over here. Please proceed in an orderly fashion... we don't need any pushing and shoving. You'll be issued a standard wooden stick, and you'll each get one whack at the PkWare piñata.
Giving Sun a little credit, for at least having the good sense to provide some form of community review process on proposed specifications, is optional, but highly recommended.
Those who wish to play the role of PkWare apologists should instead use the wooden stick to beat themselves unconscious... to the benefit of everyone else.
The crux of Virtual On's game design is that of vector based dash attacks and close combat moves within a fixed arena. More specifically the dash attacks are pivoted around your opponent, in that you are locked onto your target, and the ensuing high-speed tactical ballet is very much a hallmark of the series.
This would have been useful information back when I was starring as a "projectile recepticle" with the Oratorio Tangram release. I eventually came to think of myself as a training dummy for the CPU. I don't read Japanese, but I always imagined that my computer-controlled opponents ended most battles not with taunts, but rather with something along the lines of, "I am owing you debt of gratitude for standing polite while I practice happy combos."
In retrospect, I guess I should have done a little light reading on the subject. I never quite managed to grasp the subtlties of its rather novel gameplay physics, which the above description now puts into much better perspective.
"High-speed tactical ballet"... to the fumbling idiot, the Virtual On series was really more of a "high-speed prison shower scene."
> Why is it, that people always post big stories about the XboX ?
We enjoy reading various Xbox insiders talk about overtaking PS2 for the very same reason that we enjoying reading posts with extraneous commas and random capitalization: It's comedy gold.
> I don't see nearly as much stories about the PS/2
I almost bit on that one. I was about to waste precious time laying down an array of PlayStation-related story links, such as the recent announcement of a Sony handheld, several scattered tech notes on the architectural changes planned for the PS3, and the numerous obligatory PS2 hacks and mods.
> I guess as soon as it is from microsoft, it's bad...
Of course not. I, for one, always assume that anything from M$ is remarkably stable and well-designed, and that their behavior in any given market keeps the associated industry vibrant and consumer-friendly.
There's not enough room in my head to store useless information, so I never bother with silly things like "historical perspective." That's why I buy all of my Iomega gear at Best Buy, which I then promptly install on my SCO box; because, hey, every company deserves an amnesiac consumer base, right?
> GET A LIFE ! Microsoft is just some big company. All big companies do bad things.
I also find that moral equivocacy further simplifies my life. The world is so much easier to comment on when there are no degrees to consider. I like to paint everything with a giant, monochrome brush.
> That you are stupid enough to buy their stuff, that is your fault.
Finally, an assessment I can't argue with. The only thing I'm curious about, though, is this: I shouldn't be stupid enough to buy their products, but since all corporations are equally bad, what *should* I buy? You've obviously never been stupid enough to buy one of those "imperialist" consoles. But then, I guess it would be hard to play one without an imperialist television.
> They also do good things.
Quick, name one. I know: They ushered in the age of the GUI... oh wait, they actually stole that idea. But they've written at least a few pretty decent products over the years, like SQL Server... oh wait, they bought that.
I guess you're just referring to their superlative business ethics in general. Personally, I've always found the ISV and VAR criticisms of M$ as "inflexible" to be totally off-base. Their moral flexibility, alone, is without peer.
> Maybe it's not 'cool' to say good things about them
It's not. Still, the question is largely an academic one. We would need a good thing to report in order to put the matter to practical test, and there's very little risk of that happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they start producing these things in the shape of imaginary animals, this concept will dry up and blow away a few hours from now. Kids like pokemon because of the creature angle. If you were to replace the creatues with, say, all of the US presidents, leaving everything else the same, the pokemon phenomenon would have been a non-event.
..." comment: When I first read that, I thought we were talking about crypto keys. You know, collect keys, see who's is stronger, etc. Now *that* I could dig:
... Oops, I guess I should have waited until it evolved into an AES Charizard."
Also, since I *know* at least half of the slashdot crowd initially read the headline the same way I did, I'll be the first to make the obvious "When I first read that
"Hey honey, went down to the comic store and bought some new BreaKey cards. I have a good feeling about this new 256-bit DES Charmander key I got. Let's battle!
Amen, brother. And MS will continue to have a noxious effect on the entire gaming industry. Don't expect it to end with Bungie, by any means.
... that's a road we don't want to go down. Not only will it inevitably affect the creativity of indie development houses (which is reason enough to avoid the situation), but on the console side of things it's worse. One is locked out of all future games from those developers unless he/she owns the proper console.
... *shuter*
For those of us who don't like MS and won't own an XBox, the fact that we missed out on the whole Halo thing is not even the full extent of the problem. This business of console makers buying large, successful developers/publishers outright
So not only did I miss the Halo phenomenon, sadly, I will also be missing the sequel---along with any other quality games the Bungie crew happen dream up. The above poster is absolutely right. Releasing Halo on the PC at this point is simply an insult. He's also right in pointing out that the glory days of Bungie are now behind them, with the acquisition virtually guaranteeing that.
As a momentary exercise in completely extraneous hypotheticals, and to drive the point home with much more force (given the audience), imagine for a moment that MS had decided to acquire Squaresoft instead of Bungie
First of all, why does someone with such a wit as this not have a persistent account on Slashdot? Oh wait ... that question almost answers itself, doesn't it?
/. enjoyment factor tremendously.
(Take Two:)
First of all, please set up a persistent account. Tracking users of obvious wit increases my
Secondly, I can't help but feel that the "line the kitty box" option has been shortchanged here. Insofar as pattern recognition factors heavily into any modern IQ test, it seems to me that anyone identifing this "RIAA Amnesty" bit as being vaguely similar---in smell and appearance---to animal excrement ought to be awarded a slightly higher score than someone who failed to bubble in a response by simply ignoring the whole thing. (Such an individual should also be commended, by the way, for essentially recycling their garbage.)
Finally, I would also like to propose an option resulting in a score of 55: "Send in your notarized form with photo ID. Include, also, a photo of a short bus with a caption reading, 'This is how I get to school in the mornings'."
Iodine-129: "You expect me to talk, Mr. Ledingham?"
... Pun is the death of wit."
Ledingham: "No, Mr. I-129, I expect you to die."
Note: Inexplicable urge to change the last word to "dye" overcome by recalling the first mantra of humor: "Pun is the death of wit
I'm unaware of any company that would shortchange the customer in their speed to get the software to market.
And this from a spokesman for the "Software and Information Industry Association," whoever the hell that is.
What the article left out:
djNocturne, spokesman for the Selective Amnesia Prevention Society, was taken aback by such a profoundly silly statement. Ultimately, he questioned the SIIA's decision to hire a spokesman with such a debilitating condition as SAS, or "Selective Amnesia Syndrome."
"I'm not saying that people with acute SAS should be denied the opportunity to make a living. I'm simply saying that some jobs require more information retention than others, and that people suffering from SAS might not be the best candidates for such a position."
The good DJ then proceeded to recount the tale of how Microsoft won the Word Processing war back in era of DOS and Win 3.1. He explained that MS Word eventually defeated WordPerfect---which was a much more advanced product at the time---by constantly pushing out buggy releases which slowly gained market share; not by fixing any identified bugs/problems, resulting in a more stable and usable product, but rather by virtue of adding "slick" new features at the expense of overall quality.
Halfway through this explanation, however, the SIIA spokesman became distracted by a shiny object in the distance and simply wandered away.
From the article:
A statement announcing the event said that SCO executives will provide details on "opportunities for Linux customers."
My Hotmail inbox, ten minutes later:
From: SCO Nigeria
Subject: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
I am making this contact with profound interest, having considered you highly reputable and capable of assistance to my understated business proposal. I am Darl C. McBride from the Democratic Republic of SCO. On trust and in utmost confidence, I am establishing this relationship with you in benevolent spirit as to an opportunity rightly at hand.
In a closed-door meeting before Caldera's sudden and suspicious death, a Mr. Ransom Love disclosed to me certain facts and secrets regarding IP which was secretly deposited in a codebase, buried under a giant "Unix" tree. This issue has been a secret, and I am therefore taking this as an opportunity to enrich and equip myself to face my secret ambition.
All I need now is a reliable partner with whom I can clear and transfer this IP abroad. You shall retain a reasonable percentage of the total value of this IP as your share. I shall count on your indulgence to please keep this information very secret and confidential.
ps: Please henceforth address me as "Dr. Kananga." That is the name I am now using for security reasons.
The first thing I landed on was her official site, which begins with what I assume to be her most recent article. It was clear from the very first sentence that I was in for a comedy routine of the highest order:
THE MYTH OF "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I'm not even sure where to begin. First of all, you literary mastermind, try brushing up on your references before you start deploying them. This will save you the deep embarassment of using terms which mean precisely the opposite of what you think they mean. "Orwellian" refers to something perpetrated on the public, not by the public.
Second of all, McCarthyism does not belong in quotes. McCarthyism is a documented fact. I've seen black-and-white footage of the hearings, so unless you believe that this was filmed in a secret warehouse somewhere---by the same evil conspirators that would later fake the moon landing---then what you are really complaining about is the negative historical connotation associated with both the mission and the tactics of the now-defunct Senate Committee on Unamerican Activities. The good news is, either belief effectively qualifies you for an extended "vacation" in a lovely place where you can get some rest, and where the nice men in white coats wheel you over to the window three times a day.
The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism.
I agree. He was so misunderstood. All of those pinko commie bastards who were driven out of work, and subsequently couldn't feed their families, they had it coming, sure enough. People who don't espouse an approved political viewpoint should definitely be systematically cast out and denied a living. This is America, after all, and we don't tolerate that kind of crap in America.
Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.
-1: Flamebait
Slashdot currently has an opening in the exciting field of forum trolling. The available position is that of Troll Project Lead, and the qualified applicant will have 5+ years experience in making extraneous, half-baked comparisons of any opposing viewpoints to Nazi Germany. Knowledge of Natalie Portman and/or grits is a plus.
Other statements which would have qualified as demonstrated trolling prowess:
It's true, I've tried.
... left ! God and BABY Jesus, I am not playing that entire level again!"
... unless, of course, you decide that it's to blame for the "glitch."
"What the f--"
"I pushed left, you squirrely piece of shit
Storm out of the room. Wait at least two minutes (you do have your pride), then slink back in and play that entire level again.
I also recommend a wireless controller. Preferrably one of the more expensive models. Trust me, you're much less tempted to throw a $50 miracle of modern technology into the wall
The beauty of the Xbox Live is this: You pay just one fee for services. If every company is hosting on-line play for thier games, you might have to pay several bills to different people.
... And quite possibly cheaper in the long run
:). As you point out, that particular issue is really a big numbers game, and the final answer will vary from person to person. I'm not even going to pretend to bust out pseudo-statistics, because it obviously comes down to simply which games one will find themselves playing and to what extent. All I can really say is that from what I know about the new online-compatibile games currently in the works for both platforms, the line-ups are equally good, so it will probably come down to individual tastes. Of course, if one of the consoles ... *cough*likePS2*cough* ... were to detect a sudden influx of gamers and begin to see the scales tip in their direction, I'm sure that their online library would get real diverse, real quick ;)
/.
... those are both legit points. Let's keep that strictly between you and me, though. Don't tell anyone I said that =)
That's a valid point, but it goes back to my "who do I want getting my money: the consoler or the people who made the game possible" argument. It actually ends up being equally parts simple principle and enlightened self-interest. I do think that the developer/publishers more deserve to have it, but I also believe that the general approach itself will spur more widespread adoption of online console gaming in the long run, and probably more inventive ideas even within that. Left to their own devices, I have to believe that publishers will come up with their own unique implementations of what online gaming entails. It could get quite interesting to see Eidos and Capcom, for example, start trying to one-up each other in terms of feature integration on the servers. With the Xbox Live approach, they don't have nearly the same amount of creative license.
This is all just one man's opinion, of course. I believe that the long-term benefits of a more wide-open approach outweigh the minor hassle of making separate payments to different companies, but other people might just disagree with me and decide on the ultimate simplicity of the Xbox approach. All I can really do is try and explain why, in my opinion, the community would be better off siding with Sony on this one, and hopefully to convince enough people through valid arguments. As with most things in life, there's some room for respectful disagreement.
That's another valid point, and unfortunately probably the only one I can't unequivocally counter. (Well, I could, but I would lose all credibility when the astute reader suddenly realized that I was spinning horse shit into gold
I could just be talking out of my ass though. But, this is
Nah
I essentially misspoke here. My comments were only directed at the entertainment division, in general, and the gaming division in particular (which is pretty much an island unto itself). I won't lie. Sony the corporation does tend to shank it quite a bit on market management ... although I still stand by my "remarkably nimble" comment, as making quick market adjustments---when they want to---isn't their problem.
... at least not yet. They've had an enormous library of available titles from the very beginning, and titles to suit a wide variety of gamers. The success of the "Greatest Hit" program, as they implemented it, is widely considered to be one of the more brilliant ideas they've introduced into the industry. For my money, they haven't made a bad call yet, and that in itself is almost unbelievable in the sometimes screwy world of the "throw-every-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" gaming industry.
... Anyone? ...
My take on the gaming industry has always been this: As long as you do right by gamers, you buy yourself a great deal of breathing room in the overall market. You can afford to withstand a few minor misjudgements on the direction of gaming so long as the community still believes in you. Sega is a prime example of a company that gave back every ounce of goodwill they ever earned from the Genesis system, then proceeded make "questionable decisions" their official mission statement. They obviously paid the price for that.
My only point is that Sony is the precise opposite of Sega. They have consistently done right by gamers, in my opinion. Perhaps more impressive is the fact that they haven't even needed that fallback cushion
Sure, someone else might have a different opinion on what officially constitutes a "misstep," but I think that even the harshest PS critic would have to agree that at this point, Sony is by far closest to approaching the elusive "always delivers, every time" label. Microsoft, as a console manufacturer, is far too young to even be considered for that title at this point.
That's actually what I meant by "Sony doesn't stumble." Granted, I should have made clear that what I really meant was, "Sony's gaming division doesn't stumble in delivering the goods." But yes, in terms of mastering the art of graceful stock market strategy, they could definitely use a Prima guide or something. Quick, someone get them a walkthough!
Ah, so this is how trolls get karma. Now I understand.
You know trolls that post in that much length and detail? Wow. Those must be some pretty dedicated trolls, to spend that much time presenting a rather thorough case on something simply for the sake of getting a rise out of people. And you say that this new breed of troll also seeks to somehow accumulate karma during the process of irritating as many people as possible? That would be a pretty neat trick.
All one has to do is to take deficiencies of something and, after looking at them through fanboy goggles, turn them into strengths.
It's funny that I actually went out of my way to explain in detail why, specifically, I consider the Sony approach to be a better choice for geeks and gamers, yet you simply make vague reference to the "deficiencies" of the design without further explanation.
As I've said, I like my online console capabilities like my OS: flexibile and openly architected. You obviously prefer plus-and-play, and that's fine, but don't kid yourself. I'd wager that most of the (sufficiently knowledgable) gamers out there don't consider the flexibility of not being locked into a single monolithic network to be an inherient "deficiency." Does it require a certain leap of faith in publishers, in that they will have to run good solid networks? Absolutely. Then again, these aren't exactly clueless companies we're talking about. Considering recent history, I'm inclined to give Eidos much better odds than M$ at pulling this off.
Or, if you prefer, consider it from a larger context. Which design do you think will encourage more online gaming innovation: The one where developers get whatever cut M$ decides to give them, or the one where they control their own destiny? If I gave you a cadre of skilled gaming programmers and some start-up capital, then told you to go create a company which produces online console games, which system would you release on?
Okay, so it does take extra hassle to manage your own game network, but when you control the price point and technical aspects on your own terms, you at least have a legitimate shot, if you make good business decisions and hire the right people, to make serious bank. I firmly believe that the Sony method will eventually lead to a more robust innovation. Right now, M$ makes it easy for a gaming shop to write online games by removing the technology barriers of administering the actual network. Like any tech, however, it will evetually become a much more pervasive and widely-understood art. M$ makes it easier for small gaming companies---for now, at least---but Sony makes it infinitely more enticing, in the long run.
Xbox Live has been online since November - how many DoS attacks have you heard about? That's what I thought.
I see. So by examining the architecture of a system and pointing out specific areas of concern from a technical standpoint, I'm engaged in rampant fear-mongering. I didn't suggest that any attack was immenient, nor was I particularly vague on my assessment. I simply pointed out that the obvious: That a single large network is inheriently more susceptible to wider and more crippling attacks than an array of smaller independent networks. But I guess that simply Googling for existing exploits is a sufficient method of doing a security and health assessment of a given network architecture. Damn, I wish I had known that. I wouldn't have wasted time actually using my brain to reason things out for myself. Next time an original thought occurs to me, I'll simply have you Google it for me as the ultimate test of validity.
If you have any actual rebuttals to any of my postulations, or would like to debunk them in any way, I'd be eager to hear it. I'm certainly not claiming any additional knowledge beyond what is publicly available on the subject. No, I'm just a humble developer/admin who knows how to assess possible security concerns when I see them. If I'm missing so
Good point, but online gaming in the console market is finally starting to pick up steam, and will eventually become incredibly profitable. The real question is, for whom? The problem M$ will forever have in winning over online gamers, and the very reason I'm not the least bit concerned about that eventuality, was summarized quite nicely by the man himself:
... let's see ... when I decide to pay for online gaming, do I want the money should go to, a) the console manufacturer, or b) the publisher and/or development company that worked hard to produce the game in the first place? Also, when some bored little teenage malcontent decides to DoS the gaming network using tools some clever jackass wrote and posted online, or do I want it to, a) take out the entire networking capabilities for every online-compatible game I own, or b) the specific network of a single publisher?
... but then again, so can anyone else.)
... in the same way that Windoze XP is easier for my grandmother to run than Linux. But unless my grandma plans on booting up Halo 2 and dumping a 20-gallon drum w00t-ass on you---and if she is, she certainly hasn't mentioned it to me---then I guess I fail to see a market clammoring for dumbed-down simplicity at the expense of choice and some measure of flexibility.
"Do they [Sony] have a service? Don't they just sell adaptors?"
Once again, in Microsoft's alternate reality, a technology system only achieves a full state of Nirvana once it is controlled front-to-back by a single company. Hmmm
Isn't Microsoft that the same company that had both their primary and secondary DNS records on the same Class C at one point? Yeah, I trust them to competently administer a monolithic online console network single-handedly.
The entire issue of the M$ vs. Sony online architectures can be summarized thusly:
M$ alone controls the "Xbox Live" gate. If a publisher wants to add online capabilities into their game, M$ alone will decide how many, or how few, table scraps to throw them from the table of proceeds. They alone will also decide how much you, the gamer, are going to pay them for the privilege of having only one game-network option when you plug an ethernet cable into your XBox. As with anything M$, "ease-of-use" and "reliability" are the primary reasons given for why we should all bow down to a single network.
As this shill correctly points out, Sony just sells an adaptor. That's all. Just the hardware that you need to connect. The gaming servers themselves are independent of Sony Corp. (Actually, they will probably run the networks for their own in-house titles
Is a system where you simply plug in a cat5 cable, run a little on-screen config form, and then just start sending M$ money the ultimate in ease-of-use? Sure it is
I, for one, would actually love to see the Xbox continue down this path. It'll send most of the serious gamers (and, by extension, games) over to the online-capable console I actually do own. I'd therefore like to send a shout out to the entire Xbox division. Keep on doing what you do, baby!
Step 1: Hire an ex-Sega man and assign him a high-ranking job in your console division.
... problematic.)
Step 2: Unknown. (The rapid and ultimate effectiveness of Step 1 renders any futher testing
While I don't necessarily condone ISOs (the game image kind ... Linux ISOs are okay :), I do have to take exception with the idea that they "can and will kill entire formats." To the best of my knowledge, no legitimate contender has ever taken a dive due in significant part to pirating.
...
... *visuals of Bill and Steve on one of those FPS "bighead mode" unlocks* =) I don't think they have the first idea what to do, as it's not a position they're too familiar with.
For the record, I myself have absolutely no idea how I managed to turn a philosophical debate on GC pirating into a Sega-bash/Sony-will-own-M$ doubleheader. That's pretty much where all of my conversations eventually lead these days ... even when people ask me about things completely unrelated to gaming ;)
[Suddenly counting out my Ridilin pills to make sure I haven't been forgetting to take them ...]
I have to go now, though. I need to figure out some obtuse analogy so that I can sneak this M$ vs. Sony tirade in on the next SCO post. I figure I've only got about 45 minutes left.
True, the DC was clearly the most pillaged console in history, in terms of "purchase-to-pirate" ratio, but such piracy was honestly the least of Sega's concerns by that point (as anyone who owns a DC can likely attest to). The history of Sega had already become a comedy of errors *long* before the DC even shipped. What began with the "Sega CD" simply ended with a bang rather than a whimper. Sega well into the slow burn before the DC was even a a twinkle in their eye, and their eventual exit had very little to do with rampant pirating. It had to do with burning their customers time and again, until even the most ardent loyalists had completely lost faith.
The PS1 is, without a doubt, the single most pirated console in history, in terms of raw numbers, but Sony continues to make bank to this day, and their enormous marketshare lead shows very little sign of abating, even with everything both M$ and Nin can collectively throw at them. Why? Because they know how to play the game (no oun intended). Sony is the diametric opposite of Sega. Sega just couldn't get out of their own way long enough to be successful, regardless of how many chances the were afforded.
Sony, on the other hand, looks bulletproof at this point. Thus far, they've withstood an army pirates, the Nintendo juggernaught, and the most relentless force known to mankind: Bill Gates with his hand out.
Someone recently remarked to me that M$ is now basically adopting one of their favorite tactics: prop a thing up with an endless supply of money and simply play the waiting game. My response was that such a thing will eventually get them ahead of Nin, who is given to occasional stumbles. On the other hand
Sony doesn't stumble. Period. Sure, go ahead and take that "prevent defense" against the remarkably nimble Sony Corporation. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Right now, M$ is merely trailing, but the writing is on the wall. As the entire XBox Live versus Sony's *much* more publisher-/consumer-friendly approach shows us, M$ is in over their heads here. (Which is amazing, considering how big their heads actually are
I actually wrote my own daemon program for that. Using advanced musical "fingerprinting" algorithms, it scans all inbound music files looking for horseshit music. The response mechanism varies according to a predefinied "threat assessment" table.
... just to make absolutely sure that not one single bit remains.
Upon detecting music which would result in only mild discomfort, the transfer is simply terminated. The next category describes music likely to result in a complete breakdown of whatever lingering faith one might have in humanity, at which point the application panics and erases the entire HD
The detection of an incoming Celine Dion cut would result in what I like to call "Fourth Horseman Mode." I won't go into specifics, but let's just say that it involves parts borrowed from my microwave, and that everyone within a few square blocks will suffer catastrophic data loss.
Utimately, though, that's a small price to pay for being spared the artistic stupor of contemporary mainstream music. Quite frankly, if Hatch flipped the remote killswitch on your Dion-infested computer, he did you a favor.
For the benefit of any other anonymous German developers planning to get their "uppity" on, a friendly word of advice: Obnoxious corporations are not generally spooked by legal amateur hour; at least not here in the U.S. Although the superfluous footnoting was a nice touch, the overall content just didn't have that certain pedantic ... je ne sais quoi.
... for some reason, those seem to be the most unstoppable.)
... of course, I *could* be talked out of it if you were to stop [insert undesirable behavior here]." Jesus, man ... that's not smoove.
For future reference, that's just not how you punk a litigious sack of shit like SCO. Instead, think of it as a slightly larger version of Pokemon, only the little buggers suddenly lost their souls! You have to catch your own "Litigimon" to do proper battle. (Also, just like in the cartoon, the more obnoxious the damn thing is, the better
Anyway, just a little tough love for any other would-be ballbusters out there. I'm pulling for you, trust me, but you have to do that shit right. If you're gonna to come over here and join our crew, come heavy. Bring a little something besides that weak-ass, cross-continential chest-puffing routine. Above all, never, ever throw like a girl. This is of the utmost importance.
One final piece of advice. Negotiation is an art, and one that requires a certain measure of tactical skill. I'm sad to say, this is not a particular skill you were born with, or otherwise possess. Generally speaking, one doesn't come out of the gate with, "I'm going to sue the PANTS off you
In America, first you get their attention, then you get the power, THEN you get women.
- nocturne
(p.s. I only push you so hard because I care.)
From the article:
... we don't need any pushing and shoving. You'll be issued a standard wooden stick, and you'll each get one whack at the PkWare piñata.
... to the benefit of everyone else.
"Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add."
Sing it, brother. So essentially, cert-based encryption in the zip format is too much of a moving target to bother posting a complete spec, even a preliminary one, but not enough to prevent you from introducing the feature into your product almost a year ago? Solid.
But is this simply one man's poor choice of words? Maybe he's being quoted out of context. Luckily, another suit quickly steps in to disabuse us of that notion:
But the spec should not come out until a product is done, says Steve Crawford, PKWare's chief marketing officer.
Read: "We can't publish the full details of changes to our open format until our own commercial implementation has gone through a few revs."
Okay, I need everyone who loves to bash Sun's handling of Java to line up on the left over here. Please proceed in an orderly fashion
Giving Sun a little credit, for at least having the good sense to provide some form of community review process on proposed specifications, is optional, but highly recommended.
Those who wish to play the role of PkWare apologists should instead use the wooden stick to beat themselves unconscious
From the article:
... to the fumbling idiot, the Virtual On series was really more of a "high-speed prison shower scene."
The crux of Virtual On's game design is that of vector based dash attacks and close combat moves within a fixed arena. More specifically the dash attacks are pivoted around your opponent, in that you are locked onto your target, and the ensuing high-speed tactical ballet is very much a hallmark of the series.
This would have been useful information back when I was starring as a "projectile recepticle" with the Oratorio Tangram release. I eventually came to think of myself as a training dummy for the CPU. I don't read Japanese, but I always imagined that my computer-controlled opponents ended most battles not with taunts, but rather with something along the lines of, "I am owing you debt of gratitude for standing polite while I practice happy combos."
In retrospect, I guess I should have done a little light reading on the subject. I never quite managed to grasp the subtlties of its rather novel gameplay physics, which the above description now puts into much better perspective.
"High-speed tactical ballet"
> Why is it, that people always post big stories about the XboX ?
...
... oh wait, they actually stole that idea. But they've written at least a few pretty decent products over the years, like SQL Server ... oh wait, they bought that.
We enjoy reading various Xbox insiders talk about overtaking PS2 for the very same reason that we enjoying reading posts with extraneous commas and random capitalization: It's comedy gold.
> I don't see nearly as much stories about the PS/2
I almost bit on that one. I was about to waste precious time laying down an array of PlayStation-related story links, such as the recent announcement of a Sony handheld, several scattered tech notes on the architectural changes planned for the PS3, and the numerous obligatory PS2 hacks and mods.
> I guess as soon as it is from microsoft, it's bad
Of course not. I, for one, always assume that anything from M$ is remarkably stable and well-designed, and that their behavior in any given market keeps the associated industry vibrant and consumer-friendly.
There's not enough room in my head to store useless information, so I never bother with silly things like "historical perspective." That's why I
buy all of my Iomega gear at Best Buy, which I then promptly install on my SCO box; because, hey, every company deserves an amnesiac consumer base, right?
> GET A LIFE ! Microsoft is just some big company. All big companies do bad things.
I also find that moral equivocacy further simplifies my life. The world is so much easier to comment on when there are no degrees to consider. I like to paint everything with a giant, monochrome brush.
> That you are stupid enough to buy their stuff, that is your fault.
Finally, an assessment I can't argue with. The only thing I'm curious about, though, is this: I shouldn't be stupid enough to buy their products, but since all corporations are equally bad, what *should* I buy? You've obviously never been stupid enough to buy one of those "imperialist" consoles. But then, I guess it would be hard to play one without an imperialist television.
> They also do good things.
Quick, name one. I know: They ushered in the age of the GUI
I guess you're just referring to their superlative business ethics in general. Personally, I've always found the ISV and VAR criticisms of M$ as "inflexible" to be totally off-base. Their moral flexibility, alone, is without peer.
> Maybe it's not 'cool' to say good things about them
It's not. Still, the question is largely an academic one. We would need a good thing to report in order to put the matter to practical test, and there's very little risk of that happening.
- nocturne