I don't get how anyone could think going with slower hardware is a GOOD thing
But it is a good thing. I own a 360, and for all it's extra power, it's hardly a huge improvement over the original XBox. On top of that it is more expensive, noisier, and has heat issues. The article mentions the law of diminishing returns, and they're completely right. Nintendo saw this and took a step in a different direction, refusing to play the spec game.
But they're spending that money anyways to get the game to also run on the 360 and PS3.
Could be that there will be a lot of games made exclusively for the Wii. Especially by smaller, creative studios that don't have a gazillian dollars to spend.
The only way to really know what happened is to count the votes
And even that is imprecise, as we've seen countless times. There is no way to know what "really" happened. Putting all our eggs into tamperable, electronic machines without a paper backup is nuts. It amazes me that after the 2000 election we still don't have a system that concerned experts agree is a best-faith, reasonable attempt at holding fair elections. This billions of dollars later and by a country that should have the most transparent elections in the world.
Just watch out for message boards that you visit that may be vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack. Lots of them rely heavily on Javascript, and lots of them are insecure.
But since most users run their machines as single user machines, it makes no difference if one application is hacked or the system is hacked. All your personal data and all the applications that you use end up running under your user identity. Every editor. Every email client. Every browser window that connects to your online banking. If one of those are hacked, they're all hacked.
All you have is Linux smugness and a false sense of security (and I use Linux myself, so don't write me off as a Microsoft fanboy).
The obvious reason that they'd want to destroy us is to kill a potential enemy in the crib. Really, first contact is a big unknown -- both how we would react, and how they would react. Broadcasting beacons when we're really weak is dangerous.
A pox on both your houses. Anybody that is a dedicated Republican or Democrat turns into a screeching monkey throwing shit and pointing fingers. There's no interest in honest debate or doing what's right for the country. All you guys want to do is make the other side look bad.
Normally I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, because I don't like talking to shadows. It's also highly likely that one is wasting their time, since ACs can't get email about responses. If you want to be taken seriously, then post with an ID.
As to your argument, I haven't run into the extreme portability problems you have. Java mostly works ok on the platforms I use (Linux and Windows). Lord knows I've had just as much trouble with non-portable Perl code on Windows as I've had with Java across platforms. I'll take coding in Java over C any day.
The trademark policy to require patches to be approved by Mozilla is a slowdown or a hurdle that could have been sorted out by for example streamlining the process. The logo issue cannot be sorted out without one side giving up a position they deem important.
I don't see the difference between the "Firefox" name trademark and the logo trademark. Both issues prevent users from freely modifying and redistributing the software, via trademark law.
Even Debian prevents other people from freely modifying their distros and keeping the Debian name
The page you link to only states that you may make a CD of Debian and call it Debian. It doesn't cover modifications. People have already mentioned how Debian forced derivative distributions to not use Debian in their name. I don't see how this is any different than Mozilla's position.
Would you care to elaborate on this a bit please? I'm not familiar with this aspect of GPLv3.
GPL3 specifically allows for trademark restrictions that hinder users' rights. The wording mentions trademarks used for "publicity" purposes, but then how far does that extend? Does that include the name of the package? In any case, trademarks hinder freedoms in the current GPL2 environment (Mozilla and Red Hat obvious examples), and GPL3 doesn't resolve the situation. Here's the clause in the current draft:
[Additional requirements allowed by this License]: terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not be used for publicity purposes without express permission, other than in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark law
The Mozilla Corporation was created in the meantime and it brought new people and new policies. Mozilla Corp. now says that Debian must include the non-DFSG logo (which they can't and won't do) or stop using the trademarked Firefox name.
Here's what I don't understand. Why is the logo special? Isn't the trademarked name of the software just as much a problem? Isn't that the crux of this issue? Debian can't freely make changes to Firefox without changing the name. Imagine if every popular piece of software that Debian redistributed was trademarked, and they all disapproved of Debian's patches. What will Debian do then, rename every piece of software?
It seems that "free as in freedom" software and trademarks are fundamentally incompatible. Even Debian prevents other people from freely modifying their distros and keeping the Debian name, as has been pointed out by others in this thread. Given all the press about GPL3 and DRM, I think the trademark issue is just as fundamental, if not more so. What's weird is that the GPL3 encourages companies to use trademark poisoning to prevent the freedom to copy/modify.
Actually, I think Perl6 will ultimately be a much better language in which to design large systems.
The problem is that people who think that Perl is not good for designing large systems have long since moved on to other languages. People who think that Perl5 is great as is are not going to like the Perl6 features. So Perl6 ends up pleasing nobody.
Perl5 serves a useful niche. I still reach for it when I want to code up something quick and dirty. The Perl development community should have focused their efforts on refinements, not changing its identity. Simple stuff like moving more functionality into the standard library.
And then they decide that, hey, we need more money, we'll take away the reason you PAID for a DVR in the first place.
Do the people making the anti-DVR commercials get any of that $10 you are paying for your DVR? I understand your frustration, but advertising is a huge chunk of revenue for content producers. This tension between consumers, advertisers, and content producers isn't going to go away.
And specifically mentioned in TFA. They credit the Half-Life team with being able to deliver on what they promised, which is hard for a small company to do.
If you buy it at $250, why should they sell it for less?
Because they're pushing away undecided people. At $200 I would have gotten a Wii for sure and felt good about it. Now I just don't know. I think the psychological advantage of $600 vs $400 vs $200 would have been huge. Now at $250, well hrmm, why'd they have to go and break with history? Especially considering that they're staking their claim as being the fun, affordable console, not the over-priced, bleeding edge console.
It's an issue with TRC and conformance, which is Microsoft's responsibility. There's probably something along the lines of "Text must be readable in SD resolution". If there isn't, that's Microsoft's fault. If there is and Microsoft's conformance testing missed it, it's
Microsoft's fault.
I agree. Microsoft really dropped the ball with not just this game, but with nearly all the 360 console games. I can't believe how many games have hard to read text on a standard definition television. Really, it's turned me completely off of the 360. I never buy games for it and hardly play it.
Tons of people still have not upgraded to high definition. It's really unprofessional that all these game companies spend millions of dollars developing a game and don't test common scenarios.
Too much overlap to make it worthwhile for me. But sure, if you want and can afford both then why not?
In addition, when they are displaying the same scene continuously, they are more like a single 256x384 screen, which is not a practical resolution for things like videos, emulators, or PC game ports (which are often in a 4:3 aspect ratio).
I don't understand this comment. Why did you divide one of the dimensions by two?
Anyways, I agree with you, two smaller screens is not the same as one big screen, but still, the real estate is there and useful in a lot of contexts. Plus I love the stylus! (Though it's too bad you can't use it on both screens.)
I considered the GP2X instead of the DS, but the DS has a stylus. So for $130 + $60 in accessories to enable homebrew, the DS ends up costing the same price as the GP2X. Plus the DS has 512x384 pixels of screen real estate vs 320x240, and built-in Wii-Fi. Really an amazing deal, considering that the average Pocket PC costs $300.
Slashdot Mirror
But it is a good thing. I own a 360, and for all it's extra power, it's hardly a huge improvement over the original XBox. On top of that it is more expensive, noisier, and has heat issues. The article mentions the law of diminishing returns, and they're completely right. Nintendo saw this and took a step in a different direction, refusing to play the spec game.
Could be that there will be a lot of games made exclusively for the Wii. Especially by smaller, creative studios that don't have a gazillian dollars to spend.
And even that is imprecise, as we've seen countless times. There is no way to know what "really" happened. Putting all our eggs into tamperable, electronic machines without a paper backup is nuts. It amazes me that after the 2000 election we still don't have a system that concerned experts agree is a best-faith, reasonable attempt at holding fair elections. This billions of dollars later and by a country that should have the most transparent elections in the world.
Sorry, not ranting at you, just ranting.
Just watch out for message boards that you visit that may be vulnerable to a cross-site scripting attack. Lots of them rely heavily on Javascript, and lots of them are insecure.
But since most users run their machines as single user machines, it makes no difference if one application is hacked or the system is hacked. All your personal data and all the applications that you use end up running under your user identity. Every editor. Every email client. Every browser window that connects to your online banking. If one of those are hacked, they're all hacked.
All you have is Linux smugness and a false sense of security (and I use Linux myself, so don't write me off as a Microsoft fanboy).
The obvious reason that they'd want to destroy us is to kill a potential enemy in the crib. Really, first contact is a big unknown -- both how we would react, and how they would react. Broadcasting beacons when we're really weak is dangerous.
A pox on both your houses. Anybody that is a dedicated Republican or Democrat turns into a screeching monkey throwing shit and pointing fingers. There's no interest in honest debate or doing what's right for the country. All you guys want to do is make the other side look bad.
Normally I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, because I don't like talking to shadows. It's also highly likely that one is wasting their time, since ACs can't get email about responses. If you want to be taken seriously, then post with an ID.
As to your argument, I haven't run into the extreme portability problems you have. Java mostly works ok on the platforms I use (Linux and Windows). Lord knows I've had just as much trouble with non-portable Perl code on Windows as I've had with Java across platforms. I'll take coding in Java over C any day.
I don't see the difference between the "Firefox" name trademark and the logo trademark. Both issues prevent users from freely modifying and redistributing the software, via trademark law.
The page you link to only states that you may make a CD of Debian and call it Debian. It doesn't cover modifications. People have already mentioned how Debian forced derivative distributions to not use Debian in their name. I don't see how this is any different than Mozilla's position.
GPL3 specifically allows for trademark restrictions that hinder users' rights. The wording mentions trademarks used for "publicity" purposes, but then how far does that extend? Does that include the name of the package? In any case, trademarks hinder freedoms in the current GPL2 environment (Mozilla and Red Hat obvious examples), and GPL3 doesn't resolve the situation. Here's the clause in the current draft:
[Additional requirements allowed by this License]: terms that prohibit or limit the use for publicity purposes of specified names of licensors or authors, or that require that certain specified trade names, trademarks, or service marks not be used for publicity purposes without express permission, other than in ways that are fair use under applicable trademark law
Amen. "troll" is so overused/abused it has become meaningless. Right up there with "lol" and "terrorist".
Here's what I don't understand. Why is the logo special? Isn't the trademarked name of the software just as much a problem? Isn't that the crux of this issue? Debian can't freely make changes to Firefox without changing the name. Imagine if every popular piece of software that Debian redistributed was trademarked, and they all disapproved of Debian's patches. What will Debian do then, rename every piece of software?
It seems that "free as in freedom" software and trademarks are fundamentally incompatible. Even Debian prevents other people from freely modifying their distros and keeping the Debian name, as has been pointed out by others in this thread. Given all the press about GPL3 and DRM, I think the trademark issue is just as fundamental, if not more so. What's weird is that the GPL3 encourages companies to use trademark poisoning to prevent the freedom to copy/modify.
And how: Fund loses $8.7b in month, calls it a day
Every marketing deptartment is trying to con you out of your money. There's nothing special about alcohol, tobacco, or gambling.
Have you provided patches for all those you have wronged?
So, you've never critiqued a volunteer project without giving back?
I don't have humble opinions, and I don't avoid critiquing stuff even when I have not contributed. I'm sure you're no different.
The problem is that people who think that Perl is not good for designing large systems have long since moved on to other languages. People who think that Perl5 is great as is are not going to like the Perl6 features. So Perl6 ends up pleasing nobody.
Perl5 serves a useful niche. I still reach for it when I want to code up something quick and dirty. The Perl development community should have focused their efforts on refinements, not changing its identity. Simple stuff like moving more functionality into the standard library.
Do the people making the anti-DVR commercials get any of that $10 you are paying for your DVR? I understand your frustration, but advertising is a huge chunk of revenue for content producers. This tension between consumers, advertisers, and content producers isn't going to go away.
Good question. Do you think $10 a month covers the cost of *all* of the programming that gets piped in to your tv?
And specifically mentioned in TFA. They credit the Half-Life team with being able to deliver on what they promised, which is hard for a small company to do.
Because they're pushing away undecided people. At $200 I would have gotten a Wii for sure and felt good about it. Now I just don't know. I think the psychological advantage of $600 vs $400 vs $200 would have been huge. Now at $250, well hrmm, why'd they have to go and break with history? Especially considering that they're staking their claim as being the fun, affordable console, not the over-priced, bleeding edge console.
I agree. Microsoft really dropped the ball with not just this game, but with nearly all the 360 console games. I can't believe how many games have hard to read text on a standard definition television. Really, it's turned me completely off of the 360. I never buy games for it and hardly play it.
Tons of people still have not upgraded to high definition. It's really unprofessional that all these game companies spend millions of dollars developing a game and don't test common scenarios.
Oops, right. Thanks for the correction.
Too much overlap to make it worthwhile for me. But sure, if you want and can afford both then why not?
I don't understand this comment. Why did you divide one of the dimensions by two?
Anyways, I agree with you, two smaller screens is not the same as one big screen, but still, the real estate is there and useful in a lot of contexts. Plus I love the stylus! (Though it's too bad you can't use it on both screens.)
I considered the GP2X instead of the DS, but the DS has a stylus. So for $130 + $60 in accessories to enable homebrew, the DS ends up costing the same price as the GP2X. Plus the DS has 512x384 pixels of screen real estate vs 320x240, and built-in Wii-Fi. Really an amazing deal, considering that the average Pocket PC costs $300.