I'm 25 years old and I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know that has even seen it let a lone someone that would be excited for a sequel
To be honest, you are has nothing to do with it here. I'm 25 myself and will probably have to drag my wife kicking and screaming when it comes out (don't worry, she'll be ok, her dad's a geek too!). I remember the first time I saw the original, and remember watching it repeatedly after that for a while.
Actually, at the end of the trailer when the title displays it makes a bit more sense. The two is broken into upper and lower halves with the top being just an arc, much like if it was an o broken up in the same way.
not that I support the use of the two in this position, but it's not as bad as it's being made out to be.
Better yet, if a game is beatable in 7 days or less by your average or even somewhat above average gamer, it isn't worth the $50+ you had to shell out for it.
I've played games that I beat in well under 7 days, playing casually, often well after they'd hit the $10 "please take this game away" bin. I'd have been pissed if I'd payed full retail for any of them, and I'm sure a lot of people were.
Ideally, because the newer product should warrant the purchase. You could carry your argument over to other fields. Why should I purchase the latest model of Camry when and older one is so much cheaper? Why should I purchase a new Tetris game, or new Super Mario Brothers when I can simply pull an old one off the shelf and play it? The argument doesn't (often) seem as valid that way because the newer products have a reasonable level of advancements, with (generally) not much more in the way of draw backs.
If your product (or even service) has truly advanced and kept up with the advancements of others, the only demographic you're likely to loose are going to be those that didn't want/need what you had to offer in the first place, and I'm willing to bet a fair amount of those aren't paying for windows as it is.
Unless you're the type to cut support when your product is still largely used, then it's just your own foot you're shooting anyway.
I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to this film's product placement in particular, but I never got the sentiment of feeling forced out of the movie by product placement.
Do you feel out of place in real life when you see a can of Pepsi? How about an ad?
Now if the movie halts for a character to address the audience regarding the ad, that's different, but that's not product placement, that's blatant advertising. If it's just a matter of saying or having something though... people talk about their ipod, iphone, netflix, etc. all the time.
If anything, it always seemed more jarring to me to see a can of "Soda" or "Smeat" than anything else.
If the one closing out here is any indication, Don't bother. I didn't even realize it was closing til I happened to be in the area one day a few months ago, and saw the big "store closing" sign. I figured it might be a good opportunity to get some cheap hardware so I stopped in. They were close enough to closing completely that a little over three quarters of the store was empty. The best price on something was roughly (possibly a little higher) than the same item at the best buy up the street.
I can understand this. Much like everyone buying to make a point that, "We like it, we want it back. Here's my money to encourage you." I think (intentionally or not) the parent is making a point through a similar medium, in the sense of "I want it, but you're not acting in a manner considerate of worldwide interests, so when I can buy it here, I won't"
Unfortunately, I think that sort of protest is as likely to produce a desired result as it is to produce a, "well, no one there is buying it, so we won't put any future effort into simultaneous release in the future" result.
If I am indeed buying a service, what exactly, is the media that I receive? If I rent a game, when the time comes, or if I violate something, I have to return the media, but when I buy a game, the same is not true. Now if I utilize that same game on servers run buy a company, that is indeed a service, and is subject to being denied, but the ridiculous concept that a game or other software I purchase is a service is just that. Why so many people have been buying into the corporate drivel that software, and even occasionally hardware is provided as a service is beyond me.
to go off of an existing analogy, if a plumber installs a toilet in your house, and he decides he doesn't like the way you're using it, he doesn't get to prevent you from using it in the future. Or even a little less abstract. If a designer thinks you don't look as good in the clothes they produce as they would like, they can't make you stop wearing them. They can't build in restrictions as to when you can wear them, or that you can only lend them out so many times or to so many people. They still have risk of a product, yes a product, doing badly. They have their own form of piracy, where a similar product is produced, a knock-off if you will, but that does not permit them to limit your usability of your purchase. People and companies still get paid for their investment, be it time or money, or both. Best of all, no where is there an EULA. You don't take your new pants home, go to put them on, and out falls a contract that must be signed before the pants can be worn. You don't get any options, it's this, or no pants.
I was under the impression (from someone who does "work in the industry" mind) that major labels tend to nor really listen to demo tapes, cds, what-have-you at all anyway. In fact, while the name of it eludes me, I recall being told of a list that essentially numbered, in order of capability, bands that were approaching the point of being successful on a "major-lable"-esque scale on their own. This way they have the chance to run in with a contract with lots of money up front (which is, in actuallity a loan) and be really flashy to ensure they maintain their hold, and don't have to waste time and money on someone that may be good, but can't sell records.
MySpace seems to have gained a new audience. Let us rewind a few days whilest we were (on the majority) complaining as to the intolerable nature of MySpace lest it's popularity. Today, while much of it's content is still intolerable,/.ers on the whole seem to be viewing MySpace in a new light.
By limited edition, do they mean limited to however meany people they can get to buy it, or limited until they find out whether or not there is a large enough market to sell it on a larger scale?
The problem therein is the sheer volume of articles that can never be completely up to date, at least not for long.
For example, I'm sure the entry on say, Latin, won't need to be updated very often. But to the other end I'm sure that the artcile about George W. Bush will need updating somewhat frequently, at least for the next few years.
To impliment a 'closed when current' concept, you would have to allow many to remain perpetually open, and due to human nature, and by that I mean the need to disagree, it's the ones that would need to stay open that are usually the most contriversial, and thereby most likely to be changed/vandalized
Hve you never heard of possesion of stolen property? I realize there are differences making the analogy difficult, but there are parrallels as well. Just because the law says the uploading is the crime, don't count yourself invincible because you only download.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
Imagine an ipod in the future. The ipod doesn't play mp3s anymore - it *only* plays Apple's DRMd music. I'm a musician, and record my band playing music, but I can't put it on my ipod directly - I have to implement DRM on the music for the ipod to play it.
Further on this point, what if you wish to personally sell or even give away said music. Why should you be required to implement DRM on a product in order to utilize functionality? Isn't that completely backwards? That would be akin to someone coming along and telling an open-source developer to protect his source before he could distribute it.
Long ago I lived in an area that had a company called WanTV (pronounced with emphasis on want.) I don't know whatever became of this company as I moved away, but it provided, at a reasonable price (often cheaper than other cable companies) non-packaged channels. You selected which channels you wanted and those were the ones you got. It seems to me that if you rated the cost of a channel based on their popularity, you could design a pretty effective business model. In turn, if studios started to shoot you down, it would result in bad publicity for them. Dening the consumer what they want and all.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 25 years old and I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know that has even seen it let a lone someone that would be excited for a sequel
To be honest, you are has nothing to do with it here. I'm 25 myself and will probably have to drag my wife kicking and screaming when it comes out (don't worry, she'll be ok, her dad's a geek too!). I remember the first time I saw the original, and remember watching it repeatedly after that for a while.
Besides, Gabe and Tycho are just into their thirties, and we know how they feel about tron. http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/11/14/
Actually, at the end of the trailer when the title displays it makes a bit more sense. The two is broken into upper and lower halves with the top being just an arc, much like if it was an o broken up in the same way.
not that I support the use of the two in this position, but it's not as bad as it's being made out to be.
Better yet, if a game is beatable in 7 days or less by your average or even somewhat above average gamer, it isn't worth the $50+ you had to shell out for it.
I've played games that I beat in well under 7 days, playing casually, often well after they'd hit the $10 "please take this game away" bin. I'd have been pissed if I'd payed full retail for any of them, and I'm sure a lot of people were.
Ideally, because the newer product should warrant the purchase. You could carry your argument over to other fields. Why should I purchase the latest model of Camry when and older one is so much cheaper? Why should I purchase a new Tetris game, or new Super Mario Brothers when I can simply pull an old one off the shelf and play it? The argument doesn't (often) seem as valid that way because the newer products have a reasonable level of advancements, with (generally) not much more in the way of draw backs.
If your product (or even service) has truly advanced and kept up with the advancements of others, the only demographic you're likely to loose are going to be those that didn't want/need what you had to offer in the first place, and I'm willing to bet a fair amount of those aren't paying for windows as it is.
Unless you're the type to cut support when your product is still largely used, then it's just your own foot you're shooting anyway.
Wait, were you just pointing out that a /.er is out of date?
Don't forget she can also seemingly recognize good songwriting when she hears it, even if she doesn't know where it came from.
I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to this film's product placement in particular, but I never got the sentiment of feeling forced out of the movie by product placement.
Do you feel out of place in real life when you see a can of Pepsi? How about an ad?
Now if the movie halts for a character to address the audience regarding the ad, that's different, but that's not product placement, that's blatant advertising. If it's just a matter of saying or having something though... people talk about their ipod, iphone, netflix, etc. all the time.
If anything, it always seemed more jarring to me to see a can of "Soda" or "Smeat" than anything else.
If he's speaking out against the Department of Defense, a branch of the government, doesn't that mean he's in league with the terrorists?
/. could take care of an other?
Could it be, that one of the most complained about things on
The Patriot Act gets Thompson tossed in Guantanamo for an unspecified period, then there's one less problem to worry about.
Probably too good to be true, but we could dream.
be honest now, did you learn that from J. J. Jameson?
If the one closing out here is any indication, Don't bother. I didn't even realize it was closing til I happened to be in the area one day a few months ago, and saw the big "store closing" sign. I figured it might be a good opportunity to get some cheap hardware so I stopped in. They were close enough to closing completely that a little over three quarters of the store was empty. The best price on something was roughly (possibly a little higher) than the same item at the best buy up the street.
I can understand this. Much like everyone buying to make a point that, "We like it, we want it back. Here's my money to encourage you." I think (intentionally or not) the parent is making a point through a similar medium, in the sense of "I want it, but you're not acting in a manner considerate of worldwide interests, so when I can buy it here, I won't"
Unfortunately, I think that sort of protest is as likely to produce a desired result as it is to produce a, "well, no one there is buying it, so we won't put any future effort into simultaneous release in the future" result.
If I am indeed buying a service, what exactly, is the media that I receive? If I rent a game, when the time comes, or if I violate something, I have to return the media, but when I buy a game, the same is not true. Now if I utilize that same game on servers run buy a company, that is indeed a service, and is subject to being denied, but the ridiculous concept that a game or other software I purchase is a service is just that. Why so many people have been buying into the corporate drivel that software, and even occasionally hardware is provided as a service is beyond me.
to go off of an existing analogy, if a plumber installs a toilet in your house, and he decides he doesn't like the way you're using it, he doesn't get to prevent you from using it in the future.
Or even a little less abstract. If a designer thinks you don't look as good in the clothes they produce as they would like, they can't make you stop wearing them. They can't build in restrictions as to when you can wear them, or that you can only lend them out so many times or to so many people. They still have risk of a product, yes a product, doing badly. They have their own form of piracy, where a similar product is produced, a knock-off if you will, but that does not permit them to limit your usability of your purchase. People and companies still get paid for their investment, be it time or money, or both. Best of all, no where is there an EULA. You don't take your new pants home, go to put them on, and out falls a contract that must be signed before the pants can be worn. You don't get any options, it's this, or no pants.
"What it does mean is that current science cannot provide proof."
...its cramped quarters in the basement of the university's engineering building since 1979. Its equipment is aging...
current insofar as equipment, etc. would allow.
That's where "believe" comes into play. Basically she's putting the burden of proof onto the side for XM + MP3 players.
I'm not sure, but this gives the "landscape" option whole new levels of depth.
no, the RIAA is an organization that represents record labels. They do not hold any copyright on songs that come into question.
I was under the impression (from someone who does "work in the industry" mind) that major labels tend to nor really listen to demo tapes, cds, what-have-you at all anyway. In fact, while the name of it eludes me, I recall being told of a list that essentially numbered, in order of capability, bands that were approaching the point of being successful on a "major-lable"-esque scale on their own. This way they have the chance to run in with a contract with lots of money up front (which is, in actuallity a loan) and be really flashy to ensure they maintain their hold, and don't have to waste time and money on someone that may be good, but can't sell records.
MySpace seems to have gained a new audience. Let us rewind a few days whilest we were (on the majority) complaining as to the intolerable nature of MySpace lest it's popularity. Today, while much of it's content is still intolerable, /.ers on the whole seem to be viewing MySpace in a new light.
Great marketing move!
1) A frighteningly large amount of teenagers have credit cards (prepaid or not)/various other form of acceptable online payment (i.e. paypal)
but failing that...
2) The same way these you teens and below pay for things like cell phones...
By limited edition, do they mean limited to however meany people they can get to buy it, or limited until they find out whether or not there is a large enough market to sell it on a larger scale?
I just won't respond to this at all
The problem therein is the sheer volume of articles that can never be completely up to date, at least not for long.
For example, I'm sure the entry on say, Latin, won't need to be updated very often. But to the other end I'm sure that the artcile about George W. Bush will need updating somewhat frequently, at least for the next few years.
To impliment a 'closed when current' concept, you would have to allow many to remain perpetually open, and due to human nature, and by that I mean the need to disagree, it's the ones that would need to stay open that are usually the most contriversial, and thereby most likely to be changed/vandalized
Hve you never heard of possesion of stolen property? I realize there are differences making the analogy difficult, but there are parrallels as well. Just because the law says the uploading is the crime, don't count yourself invincible because you only download.
Long ago I lived in an area that had a company called WanTV (pronounced with emphasis on want.) I don't know whatever became of this company as I moved away, but it provided, at a reasonable price (often cheaper than other cable companies) non-packaged channels. You selected which channels you wanted and those were the ones you got. It seems to me that if you rated the cost of a channel based on their popularity, you could design a pretty effective business model. In turn, if studios started to shoot you down, it would result in bad publicity for them. Dening the consumer what they want and all.