If I could go back in time and tell my past self (say, Win95 era) that in 15 years people would be paying Microsoft money to avoid using their products, I would have had a good hard laugh.
There's something odd or wrong about an industry where one company is paid not to deliver its goods. I mean seriously, what the heck? Software is supposed to gradually get more efficient, easier to use, and generally better. Windows just keeps getting bigger and requiring more resources for roughly the same functionality.
I'm trying to imagine a car company that has a line of vehicles where each new version gets worse gas mileage, has extra wheels, gets more confusing to drive, and the hood is welded closed. But damned if it doesn't keep looking fancier. (actually, have I just described a Hummer? lol)
"But your analogy is completely flawed. More accurate is the kid is showing up in a guitar class with a Fender and the teacher is complaining that everyone else has Gibsons."
This is straight up terrible analogy. As a guitar player, I can play a Fender and then switch to a Gibson without having to learn anything or adjust my playing style in anyway.
When I switched to Linux, I had to read a huge book and several hundred man pages along the way, and it was a big paradigm shift in how I managed a computer system.
If we are determined to use musical instruments as an analogy, the best way to describe it would be switching from a finger-picking classical style, to a standard rock guitar style of playing. Same instrument, totally different paradigm of operation.
Pretending that switching to Linux does not require a huge investment of time, interest, and effort is not going to help it penetrate the traditional desktop market. Not everyone who doesn't use Linux is ignorant; they're probably just too busy being productive.
While I'm aware that machine code can be optimized slightly better than C code, no one programs in it. (Maybe only electrical engineers when working on very specific types of embedded systems.)
Saying C is too slow compared to machine code is like saying driving to work takes too long compared to flying a jet plane. While technically true, the alternative is not reasonable.
Your point is not well taken, as education spending is measured as "per student" not as a big lump sum.
America spends more money per student than any other nation on earth, and we get very mediocre results. Throwing money at this problem is throwing good money after bad.
As for China, their students are FAR superior to ours, and they spend far less money per student than we do.
I'm sure Hannah Montana has a few good songs, given that she doesn't write any of them. Pop stars have their songs written and performed for them by real musicians.
"but he is also making a very loud statement to the government to pull its head out of its ass and appropriate more education funding."
His statement is as ridiculous as it is loud. America spends more money on public education than any other country on earth, and has some of the worst scores. In the last 15 years, education spending has doubled, and test scores have steadily declined.
Our schools don't need more money. They need to start teaching hard core reading, writing, math, science, and critical thinking and stop appropriating gigantic school bonds to build football stadiums and soccer fields. They need to spend 0 hours per day talking about cultural diversity and 100% of their time learning hard facts and skills that will improve their minds and equip them to be successful.
Correlation does not equal causation. This year, Hannah Montana outsold John Coltrane albums. Which, in your opinion, is better? Just because a bunch of people use Macs at home doesn't make Mac technology superior to anything.
I'm not implying that Windows is the John Coltrane of comptuers. I am implying that Apple is the Hannah Montana of technology. (popular, pretty, over-hyped, etc)
So if it wasn't for Ms. Nightingale, I would never have understood the deleterious effect my cat was having on my homework performance, as it might never have been properly explained.
I am very sleepy, so I erred. I meant to indicate that the monitors were very large... like big plasma TV screens. Thinking of TV's made me say "high def".
The test stand is 250 ft. high. I took a tour of the facility and got to ride an elevator up to the top.
It is an amazingly cool place. The Mission Control room is nerd heaven. Sprawling high-def monitors, scrolling reams of data, glowing diagrams and the comforting sound of a thousand different electronic devices humming beeping. [sigh]
"Life, liberty, and property" was a statement made by John Locke, a renowned political and philosophical figure who was highly influential in the developing the philosophical underpinnings of our Republic.
Not that they teach that kind of thing in school anymore. You're more likely to hear from Mao or Marx than from John Locke and Edmond Burke.
The number of new copies sold of a game is a complex function of popularity, marketing, and quality. The number of used copies on the market is a function of the game's longevity, popularity, and quality. If the demand for the game is high, the number of used copies will be low. If the demand for the game is low, the number of used copies will be high.
If you don't believe me, go to the local used games store and ask for a used copy of Chrono Trigger for the SNES. There might be one. It will be like $100. Now ask for a used copy of Madden 08. There are five of them for $9 each.
The author is arguing that game developers should be rewarded extra money for producing games that are less desirable than successful games. If you produce a horrible game, and then have EA market the bajeezus out of it, you will find that in three months the bargain bins will be full of this game. Should we now reward the bad quality of this game by forcing retailers to pay out of pocket? It is some sort of "mediocrity tax" that goes against everything that is good about free market economics.
Not only that, but the entire idea stinks of government directing the flow of the economy, something the Soviet Union discovered does not work so well. If I purchase something, I become the owner. Part of my rights of "life, liberty, and property" include "property", which means I own things that I buy and can in turn sell them to someone else. The author is, in a sense, arguing against the idea of ownership. You don't really own anything. You are just paying EA a fee to use it, and when you are done using it, you have to give it back.
If game developers want to stop being "robbed of profits", they should stop making boring games that I can beat in a week, which have no further interest to me. People are bored of spending $60 on a game that has $3 million worth of graphics content and $.35 worth of game. You know what games I sell used? Crappy ones with no replay value. You know what games I still own? Kick ass games that I still play from time to time, even though they may be old. Games that I enjoyed so much that, even though I don't play them anymore, I just love having them.
If they stamp out the buying and selling of used games, they will discover something interesting: The sales of good games will not increase, and the sales of bad games will actually decrease, because people are risk averse to something they can't sell once they've ripped through the 9 hours of expensive art content with no challenge or depth whatsoever.
Comic book movies appeared. They made boat loads of money. Drunken, sex addled movie moguls made seventy-five straight comic book movies. Seventeen in a row tank miserably. They never make another comic book movie again.
Slashdot Mirror
When I first read the headline, I thought to myself, "What does Joan Rivers have to do with science?" =)
Good job on the controller! For your next assignment, expand the library of desirable games to a number greater than 4.
I never said once, anywhere in my post, that it was unfair. Just stupid and wrong.
So clearly it is not I who needs to "STFU". I think you need to LTR. (Lern 2 reed)
I was just making a general comment. People are paying money to avoid using Microsoft's products. Regardless of who they are paying, my point stands.
If I could go back in time and tell my past self (say, Win95 era) that in 15 years people would be paying Microsoft money to avoid using their products, I would have had a good hard laugh.
There's something odd or wrong about an industry where one company is paid not to deliver its goods. I mean seriously, what the heck? Software is supposed to gradually get more efficient, easier to use, and generally better. Windows just keeps getting bigger and requiring more resources for roughly the same functionality.
I'm trying to imagine a car company that has a line of vehicles where each new version gets worse gas mileage, has extra wheels, gets more confusing to drive, and the hood is welded closed. But damned if it doesn't keep looking fancier. (actually, have I just described a Hummer? lol)
Books are not an "out of date" technology.
How about books? I know that parents barely try that anymore, but reading does that.
Drugs are always affordable when the dealer is trying to get you hooked.
"But your analogy is completely flawed. More accurate is the kid is showing up in a guitar class with a Fender and the teacher is complaining that everyone else has Gibsons."
This is straight up terrible analogy. As a guitar player, I can play a Fender and then switch to a Gibson without having to learn anything or adjust my playing style in anyway.
When I switched to Linux, I had to read a huge book and several hundred man pages along the way, and it was a big paradigm shift in how I managed a computer system.
If we are determined to use musical instruments as an analogy, the best way to describe it would be switching from a finger-picking classical style, to a standard rock guitar style of playing. Same instrument, totally different paradigm of operation.
Pretending that switching to Linux does not require a huge investment of time, interest, and effort is not going to help it penetrate the traditional desktop market. Not everyone who doesn't use Linux is ignorant; they're probably just too busy being productive.
"there is no way you are going to build any significant piece of software on your own."
Tell that to the guy who invented BitTorrent.
While I'm aware that machine code can be optimized slightly better than C code, no one programs in it. (Maybe only electrical engineers when working on very specific types of embedded systems.)
Saying C is too slow compared to machine code is like saying driving to work takes too long compared to flying a jet plane. While technically true, the alternative is not reasonable.
So if C is too slow, what language do you use when speed matters? Literally just curious. Not trying to be facetious, although it was tempting. =)
Your point is not well taken, as education spending is measured as "per student" not as a big lump sum.
America spends more money per student than any other nation on earth, and we get very mediocre results. Throwing money at this problem is throwing good money after bad.
As for China, their students are FAR superior to ours, and they spend far less money per student than we do.
I'm sure Hannah Montana has a few good songs, given that she doesn't write any of them. Pop stars have their songs written and performed for them by real musicians.
Depends on how "refreshing" you find cavities to be.
"but he is also making a very loud statement to the government to pull its head out of its ass and appropriate more education funding."
His statement is as ridiculous as it is loud. America spends more money on public education than any other country on earth, and has some of the worst scores. In the last 15 years, education spending has doubled, and test scores have steadily declined.
Our schools don't need more money. They need to start teaching hard core reading, writing, math, science, and critical thinking and stop appropriating gigantic school bonds to build football stadiums and soccer fields. They need to spend 0 hours per day talking about cultural diversity and 100% of their time learning hard facts and skills that will improve their minds and equip them to be successful.
Correlation does not equal causation. This year, Hannah Montana outsold John Coltrane albums. Which, in your opinion, is better? Just because a bunch of people use Macs at home doesn't make Mac technology superior to anything.
I'm not implying that Windows is the John Coltrane of comptuers. I am implying that Apple is the Hannah Montana of technology. (popular, pretty, over-hyped, etc)
So if it wasn't for Ms. Nightingale, I would never have understood the deleterious effect my cat was having on my homework performance, as it might never have been properly explained.
This is Slashdot. Can't we just agree that sports suck and algorithms are cool?
I am very sleepy, so I erred. I meant to indicate that the monitors were very large... like big plasma TV screens. Thinking of TV's made me say "high def".
The test stand is 250 ft. high. I took a tour of the facility and got to ride an elevator up to the top.
It is an amazingly cool place. The Mission Control room is nerd heaven. Sprawling high-def monitors, scrolling reams of data, glowing diagrams and the comforting sound of a thousand different electronic devices humming beeping. [sigh]
"Life, liberty, and property" was a statement made by John Locke, a renowned political and philosophical figure who was highly influential in the developing the philosophical underpinnings of our Republic.
Not that they teach that kind of thing in school anymore. You're more likely to hear from Mao or Marx than from John Locke and Edmond Burke.
No one is "robbed" of profits by used game sales.
The number of new copies sold of a game is a complex function of popularity, marketing, and quality. The number of used copies on the market is a function of the game's longevity, popularity, and quality. If the demand for the game is high, the number of used copies will be low. If the demand for the game is low, the number of used copies will be high.
If you don't believe me, go to the local used games store and ask for a used copy of Chrono Trigger for the SNES. There might be one. It will be like $100. Now ask for a used copy of Madden 08. There are five of them for $9 each. The author is arguing that game developers should be rewarded extra money for producing games that are less desirable than successful games. If you produce a horrible game, and then have EA market the bajeezus out of it, you will find that in three months the bargain bins will be full of this game. Should we now reward the bad quality of this game by forcing retailers to pay out of pocket? It is some sort of "mediocrity tax" that goes against everything that is good about free market economics.
Not only that, but the entire idea stinks of government directing the flow of the economy, something the Soviet Union discovered does not work so well. If I purchase something, I become the owner. Part of my rights of "life, liberty, and property" include "property", which means I own things that I buy and can in turn sell them to someone else. The author is, in a sense, arguing against the idea of ownership. You don't really own anything. You are just paying EA a fee to use it, and when you are done using it, you have to give it back.
If game developers want to stop being "robbed of profits", they should stop making boring games that I can beat in a week, which have no further interest to me. People are bored of spending $60 on a game that has $3 million worth of graphics content and $.35 worth of game. You know what games I sell used? Crappy ones with no replay value. You know what games I still own? Kick ass games that I still play from time to time, even though they may be old. Games that I enjoyed so much that, even though I don't play them anymore, I just love having them.
If they stamp out the buying and selling of used games, they will discover something interesting: The sales of good games will not increase, and the sales of bad games will actually decrease, because people are risk averse to something they can't sell once they've ripped through the 9 hours of expensive art content with no challenge or depth whatsoever.
I think Slashdot is not the best place to make the argument that open sourcing leads to security vulnerabilities.
I don't know all that much about online gaming though, so I could be wrong.
Comic book movies appeared. They made boat loads of money. Drunken, sex addled movie moguls made seventy-five straight comic book movies. Seventeen in a row tank miserably. They never make another comic book movie again.
This is what I fear happening.