Today: NSA orders all the metadata about phone calls from Verizon, which "includes the phone numbers of both parties involved in the calls, the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and the time and duration of the calls. It does not include the name or address of the subscriber or other account information, nor does it allow the content of calls to be recorded and collected."
Tomorrow: Completely separated and unrelated to the above, NSA orders a listing of all account information (names, addresses, etc.) associated with every phone number.
The Day After Tomorrow: Just on a whim and having nothing to do with the above two requests, the NSA orders all the content of calls, but stripped of any personally identifying information (no phone numbers or account numbers)
Who could complain if they did that? Separately, the information is no threat to the individual, right? And after all, there's/no way/ to compile those three data dumps into one huge interconnected database; right?
All this is fine, but can they make a version controllable by cat's thought?
Shouldn't be too hard; they can modify the already-existing thought-control mechanism* used by felines to control their bipedal drones.
Cat glances meaningfully at food bowl. "Hungry" Human gets up and puts food in bowl. Cat rolls over on back and thinks "Rub" Human stops what he is doing and dutifully scrubs the inviting tummy.
Ten thousand years ago, I bet you would've been that caveman skeptic crapping all over Grog's new fandangled "wheel."
Grog wheel no good! Look, it go 'round and 'round; it start here and then come back here! How that work? Thog no want go 'round; Thog want go places! Grog wheel stupid.
And what good Grog wheel? Thog want go somewhere, Thog walk. Thog want go somewhere faster, Thog run!
Grog say wheel help carry heavy thing, but Grog wheel made of stone; Grog wheel/is/ heavy! Thog need wheel just to carry wheel, ha-ha!
Grog wheel stupid; Thog no need and no want. Almost as bad as Mog fire-thing. Who want all that smoke and burnt meat?
It isn't as simple as that. During the protests, a lot of fake pictures (of people being run over or killed) were passed around. There were even (again, fake) reports of people being killed by the police etc. This sort of freedom to incite people to raise the level of violence doesn't exactly help.
Freedom of information is not without its problems. But previously, this sort of misinformation campaign was solely in the province of a select few - the rulers - and they also controlled the methods to out their lies. Now, everybody can spread lies, but at the same time, everybody can also find out the facts as well.
Yes, incentive propaganda is a problem but it is a problem whether it comes from on high (the ruling party) or on low (the people). At least the Internet provides a method that can possibly cut through this web of lies (sadly, not used as often as it should be), which is not an option when information is strictly controlled by the elite. This is its advantage to the people - and its threat to the ruling party.
Except I really don't see what incentive Microsoft has to push people off old versions of Windows.
After fall, most people don't buy "Windows". They buy computers, which happen to have Windows on them. This version of Windows usually is accompanied by a license that specifically states that the version of Windows that came with the computer is not - legally - transferable to another computer. And thanks to the lack of installation CDs and OEM locking , it is increasingly difficult for end users to take a version of Windows that came with their old computer and transfer it to the new one anyway.
Why does this matter? Because based on the above model, Microsoft could keep selling Windows XP, Windows 7 or any old version and it wouldn't affect their bottom line. They are still getting paid by the OEMs to license the software, after all. The money they get from hobbyists who actually buy and install the OS themselves is minimal compared to that.
Well, there is the draw of "new and shiny", except most people don't buy a new computer just because a new OS is available, and - in fact - barely consider the OS features at all. In fact, more often than not the "new and shiny" features of appear detrimental to sales because it takes users out of their comfort zone. They don't care about bling; they just want an OS that works the same as the last one.
And eventually every OS needs a revamp. Crusty code and changing hardware demands it. Service packs can only take you so far; eventually there needs to be a break to provide necessary updates. You could never service pack Windows95 to the point where it was as stable as Windows 7, for instance; there are too many architectural flaws in the older OS. But this sort of radical update isn't needed every year, or possibly even every five years.
So, yeah, I don't understand why Microsoft can't keep making money on its older versions of its software and why it seems so hellbent on forcing people to move in a direction they clearly do not want to go.
He's just saying aloud what a lot of world leaders are thinking.
The internet has created a revolution in information dispersment. No longer do the the Powers That Be have a lock on the news. Even before the Internet, of course, people could bypass the regime's total control of the media (e.g., Soviet samizdats) but even then distribution issues limited how widely alternate views could be spread. Now, thanks to the Internet, it is cheap and easy for anyone to post information onto the internet, and even easier for other people to read it. This isn't without its own problems - both in the flood of available knowledge and the lack of fact-checking - but on the whole it has radically challenged how regimes control what their populace knows and thinks. And this frightens them incredibly.
Ergodan is just voicing what many other rulers - be they third-world dictators or first-world politicians - believe in their hearts. If they had their way, they'd roll things back to the 1980s, before the Internet revolution threw everything into flux.
It would be a perfect trifecta, not only was he violated, his rights, his private property, not only was he threatened with deadly force for... nothing at all, they should add this one more thing: suing him for wasting THEIR time and resources.
And ten years later, Buttle is erroneously arrested for being a terrorist heating engineer...
Damn, now I have the "Brazil" theme song stuck in my head...
I love the idea of "Glass". I'm just wary of the Google part.
Because, let's face it; I think most of us geeks would love to have a HUD that can display any information we need right in front of us without the need for a laptop, tablet or cellphone. There's been many a time I've been somewhere and wished I could just look up some information but didn't have access to a compute (and looking up anything on a phone is frustrating and agonizing). Glass is a step in the direction I want to go (retinal digital implants are next;-)
What I don't like is Google's - or any major corporation's - involvement, because they will do everything they can to monetize my transactions with the Internet. They'll plaster everything with advertisements and data-mine my searches to create creepy profiles on me.
Get me a glasses-mounted HUD with a dumb connection to the Internet and I'll be happy. Oh, and if you disable the ability to upload videos and pictures to the Internet, then everyone else will be happy too.
Alternately, Microsoft may be intending to do something along the lines of OnLive; that is, render the game on the server (with it's "4-times-the-power-of-a-single-XBoxOne" servers) and then stream the output to the player.
Of course, you still have tremendous latency issues, unless you stick those servers in every ISP across the country (something Microsoft could afford far better than OnLive). With the increased CPU power of the new console, the stream could better compressed, resulting in better picture quality as well.
There are a number of advantages to this for both Microsoft and the developers. Games would no longer be limited by the hardware of the console, for instance, which would not only mean better graphics and larger worlds, but longer life expectancies for the consoles since its hardware doesn't need to be replaced as often (who needs faster GPUs and bigger HDDs when everything is "in the Cloud"?)\. Microsoft can keep selling the same basic model for years, with only minor tweaks and chrome, negating the need for expensive R&D. Publishers get better control of their products; it kills used game sales, they can obsolete older games to create a market for the newer versions, and they can data-mine the players. Plus, Microsoft gets paid for running the servers!
For the customer, there are fewer advantages, of course. But what corporation really cares about what the customers want these days?
1. Gamer A buys Game from Publisher for $60.
2. Gamer A decides they no longer want said Game for whatever reason.
3. Gamer A sells Game to Used Game Shop for ~$30.
4. Gamer B buys Game from Used Game Shop for $60.
5. Used Game Shop gives Publisher ~$10.
Don't forget:
6. Gamer B pays Microsoft additional $10 "reinstallation" fee to actually play his used game.
I'm just hoping that - a few years from now - desktop PCs will be powerful enough to emulate the PS3/XBox360. They've already done amazing things with older consoles (Playstation 1 and 2, Nintendo 64, Genesis, etc).
That way I only need the current console versions hooked up to the TV for new games, and the PC for my back catalog.
I'm amazed at how well my five year old PC plays PS2 games.
Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS".
and
The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.
Personally I cannot wait for Abrams to have his stamp on the franchise, and the future directors who will have an insane amount of resources to make hopefully great Star Wars films.
Which is, ironically, one of the visions Lucas originally had for the series.
"With an unlimited number of possible adventures, he [Lucas] could turn it into a bona fide franchise, having new directors have their go in the Star Wars galaxy, each making their own version of it. It could be like a space opera version of James Bond! The adventures could be more stand-alone types like the first film, or could also slowly develop themes and storylines throughout the series, and end in cliffhangers, like the serial episodes the movies were inspired by, or perhaps even follow side characters and different time periods. His [Lucas'] contract only stipulated a trio of films but with Star Wars quickly becoming the most popular film ever made, his plans for it were growing as well." (The Secret History of Star Wars, Michael Kaminsky, p.148)
I've always believed that's why Lucas was so open to the idea of the extended universe generated by various novels, computer games and comics; it wasn't simply because franchising rights brought him oodles of money but because it was always his intent to create a universe where others could play in too. By giving it to Disney, he's just following the logical conclusion to this dream. He's (hopefully) recognized his days as a movie-maker are behind him but now others can develop the world he created.
The fact that Disney will milk the franchise for all its worth might even be seen as an advantage. Other studios might use it for one or two movies then lock the IP away never to see the light of day again. Disney revisits their franchises fairly frequently.
I'm not really conspiracy minded. But I am rather down - especially today - on the way society is headed (I must be getting old. Damn kids, get off my lawn!). So while I don't believe that there was some organized plot to "Bomb the Marathon" the cynical part of me can't help but rear it's head and think that it didn't get by without crossing some agency's desk somewhere. Too often people - whether they work in the government or not - only look at the immediate goal, and far too often that goal is little better than "do only what is necessary to keep my job". It seems endemic in our culture and this lack of idealism I find increasingly depressing. And, frankly, when it comes to government officials, this lack is quite frightening. We give these people power over our children, our property, our money, our infrastructure and even our lives; in exchange, I hold them to higher standards. But far too often, all we hear about these days is how they have abandoned those standards to betray that trust.*
So, yeah, I'll be the first to admit it's terrible that my mind jumps to these conclusions. I am anything but a libertarian; on the whole, I trust government intervention far, far more than I do the suggested alternatives. But given what's been happening the past few decades, I think I can hardly be blamed for my cynicism.
Anyway, I'm in a dark mood today and this sort of event doesn't make me any more cheery.
* Yeah, this sort of stuff has been happening forever. Our governing bodies have/never/ been as idealistically pure as we've hoped and believed. But there seems to be a uptick in the how self-serving our government officials have become in the past generation or two. The idealism that made this country seems dead - it's all about "me" today, not "us" - and it saddens me.
And thank you, I was/well aware/ of what Reuters does. That's why I said the FoxNews article was identical with the one from Reuters, and not the other way around.
But what you don't seem to understand is my objection to news agencies simply copying stories off the wire and posting it as their own, without adding anything new. Essentially, this creates a single picture for the event - the one presented by Reuters. Now, for smaller papers, this is an understandable necessity; they don't have the resources to send a reporter down to Florida or even significantly rework a story. But for the major outlets, including FoxNews? I find this highly objectionable. It also makes me wonder why I should bother with the individual outlets if they are all telling the exact same tale (and I mean exact; almost all the stories are word for word the same).
Now, perhaps you feel this odd desire to have more than one viewpoint on a story makes me a "cancer on society". That's your opinion and welcome to it. News media increasingly is losing the trust of its readers and I think the above may be one of the reasons . Myself, I'd like some more effort put into the news than what I am getting, especially from outlets which purport to be independent and capable of offering better. I apologize if this irrational - and perhaps idealistic - desire of mine offends you. But I'm hardly going to recant because of it.
Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"
Followed by "I wonder if they - the government - was somehow behind this." Not themselves, not directly, but involved. Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism, and not catching him in time. Or turning a blind eye to foreign operatives so they could make a dramatic arrest to further some political goal.
Because while I don't believe most politicians or government employees are so corrupt and disloyal as to let an attack pass on American soil, I increasingly am of the opinion those officials aren't taking a long-enough view to see how their individual actions may affect the nation in the long run. Too often they are so focused on their immediate goal - be it the reduction of crime through semi-legal tactics, ensuring one's agency's budget next year by misallocating funds this year, or improving one's standings in the polls - that they sacrifice the bigger picture, and people are getting hurt because of it. They overlook little evils to pursue what they hope is a good goal, forgetting that not only don't the ends don't justify the means; but that the end itself can become unexpectedly corrupted by those methods.
So, sad as it is, I hope it is just some nut-job who got his hands on too much explosives, but the increasingly cynical part of me worries that it's not. Because the former is just some dumb idiot who thinks this is going to convert people to his cause, while the latter is evidence of just how fucked up our society is.
Either way, the media is going to have a field day with this. It's better than Christmas for them.
I'm sorry. I'm not in the cheeriest of moods today, and then something like this happens that makes me see the worst in the world.
But I agree; Captain Power was a great show. Its storyline was definitely a step above the average pablum forced unto impressionable young minds at the time: it had an overall story arc that spanned the whole season, main characters who died and an interesting, somewhat scary setting (post-apocalyptic, at the height of the cold war, when the threat of a life-extinguishing nuclear war was still giving young children nightmares). Compare that to the average action-cartoon - where the universe was reset at the end of each episode, the heroes were never at risk and the setting was friendly fantasy - and Captain Power was notably different.
True, the effects, costumes, story and dialogue were notoriously cheesy, but it was a show aimed at 5-10 year old kids. Nonetheless, one can see some of Staczynski's hallmark touches on the series that would later make Babylon 5 so revered (and that nowadays we take for granted in all new TV series). I was always hoping he would sneak a Captain Power reference into B5.
Actually, I was bashing mainstream media as a whole, not just Fox. I/mentioned/ FoxNews because it was one of the two articles used in the summary. If it had been MSNBC I would have dropped their name as well.
I mean, I did suggest people see how/all/ the news articles on Google are word-for-word identical to the Reuters feed. My comment was intended as an indictment of news media as a whole and a warning about how Slashdot should be careful not to fall into the same trap.
Regardless, that is/still/ no excuse for any news organization - FoxNews or otherwise - for simply copying-and-pasting an article from Reuters without adding anything new. It's one thing to use Reuters as a starting point for a story and quite another to just pass it off as your own reporting, which is what happens far, far too often. FoxNews is guilty of this, as are the dozens of other papers, TV shows and news outlets as my suggested search will reveal.
God, I am tired of "you people" standing up for a news organization as if you somehow owe them your loyalty, especially when not one of them gives a damn about you except as a way to sell advertisements..
I mean, c'mon; post-apocalyptic future, rogue AIs/and/ power-armor! Beat's a guy in a loincloth slapping around a skull-head and his goons with a rubber sword* any day!
Judge, can we get a ruling here?
* Of course it was made of rubber. Did you/ever/ see it cut anyone, or even bruise? I've owned Nerf weaponry that was more dangerous than He-Man's power sword!
Not that anyone on Slashdot would ever notice (I mean, who reads TFA anyway, much less TWO of them?) but the FoxNews article is almost word-for-word identical to the Reuters article. Yeah, no surprise there (mass media is amazingly lazy), but did we really have to have two links which said exactly the same thing? Well, at least the Wikipedia link had original content...
Although, for fun, try searching Google for "Snails South Florida" and try to find a news article that/isn't/ a rehash of the Reuter's article. It sure is a slick mess!
Which is fine. You are making a judgement as to which is more important to you: a fast pipe and unaltered connection to the Internet, versus a somebody (Google) creating a detailed profile on you based on your browsing habits.
My post was not a judgement between ISPs or Google. There is a trade-off with either. It was merely a clarification that there/is/ a difference between Google's methods and that of most ISPs. The latter are far less focused on data-collection and if that data-collection (and, as importantly, distribution to others) is a concern to you, you may be better off avoiding Google fiber. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the services Google is offering as well.
Frankly, given the choice, I'd take Google Fiber's "free" offerings (up to 5MBit) in a heartbeat and take the money I save and spend it on a proxy that disguises my activities on the web, for the best of both worlds.;-)
The difference between Google and ISPs is that the latter do not make it a/business/ of removing its users privacy. Yes, they may glean some additional benefit from the process, but it's a far cry from Google, in whose interest it is to know everything there is about you. For ISPs, it is sometimes in their interest to claim ignorance about their user's activities ("Oh, Bob is torrenting copyrighted material 24/7? Hmmm, well, we don't really monitor that sort of thing and anyway, our logs only go back six months..."). Google wants as large a database on each user as possible.
ISPs aren't really that happy that they are being forced to collect info for the government either. They aren't actively resisting (sadly), but if it was something they could opt-out of, you can be sure they would. Data collection is expensive, not only in terms of hardware and software, but in the resultant upset of customers if they learn you are doing it. Even for business use, the data only has limited value because the ISPs are not in advertising; they can use it internally and with a few of their partners, but they don't have the capability to maximize the value of the data. This limits what they can do with the data and how much money they can earn from the data-collection. This finite utility, combined with the cost of the data collection and the potential to upset the customers, restricts the ISPs from going full-bore with stripping user privacy.
Google will never opt-out of data-collection - for themselves or at request of governmental entities - because that is what they do. That is how they make money. Just as data-collection might be a side business to the ISPs, providing internet service is just a side business to Google.
And that is the difference between ISPs and Google.
Its funny though that just a year ago, while Apple was riding high as the world's most valued company, judges were quick to rule in favour of Apple, now judges are just tired of the same old bullshit.
It's actually been more like 1 year, 6 months and six 6 days since the beginning of Apple's decline in the public eye.
What we are seeing is the steady unraveling of Steve Job's reality distortion field (patent pending). Things seem to have been turning around - for the worse - for Apple ever since their blessed founder's death.
They need to carefully search his former office for some fingernail clippings, invest a few billion dollars in human cloning, and get themselves a new Steve Job (an iJob, patent pending) before things go completely tits up. Not to mention they could then sell the process - a sort of immaculate conception (iConception, patent pending) - to any and all comers.
Man, I come up with such good ideas, I don't understand why Cupertino won't answer my calls.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Today: NSA orders all the metadata about phone calls from Verizon, which "includes the phone numbers of both parties involved in the calls, the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and the time and duration of the calls. It does not include the name or address of the subscriber or other account information, nor does it allow the content of calls to be recorded and collected."
Tomorrow: Completely separated and unrelated to the above, NSA orders a listing of all account information (names, addresses, etc.) associated with every phone number.
The Day After Tomorrow: Just on a whim and having nothing to do with the above two requests, the NSA orders all the content of calls, but stripped of any personally identifying information (no phone numbers or account numbers)
Who could complain if they did that? Separately, the information is no threat to the individual, right? And after all, there's /no way/ to compile those three data dumps into one huge interconnected database; right?
All this is fine, but can they make a version controllable by cat's thought?
Shouldn't be too hard; they can modify the already-existing thought-control mechanism* used by felines to control their bipedal drones.
Cat glances meaningfully at food bowl. "Hungry"
Human gets up and puts food in bowl.
Cat rolls over on back and thinks "Rub"
Human stops what he is doing and dutifully scrubs the inviting tummy.
* may not be compatible with all drones.
Ten thousand years ago, I bet you would've been that caveman skeptic crapping all over Grog's new fandangled "wheel."
Grog wheel no good! Look, it go 'round and 'round; it start here and then come back here! How that work? Thog no want go 'round; Thog want go places! Grog wheel stupid.
And what good Grog wheel? Thog want go somewhere, Thog walk. Thog want go somewhere faster, Thog run!
Grog say wheel help carry heavy thing, but Grog wheel made of stone; Grog wheel /is/ heavy! Thog need wheel just to carry wheel, ha-ha!
Grog wheel stupid; Thog no need and no want. Almost as bad as Mog fire-thing. Who want all that smoke and burnt meat?
It isn't as simple as that. During the protests, a lot of fake pictures (of people being run over or killed) were passed around. There were even (again, fake) reports of people being killed by the police etc. This sort of freedom to incite people to raise the level of violence doesn't exactly help.
Freedom of information is not without its problems. But previously, this sort of misinformation campaign was solely in the province of a select few - the rulers - and they also controlled the methods to out their lies. Now, everybody can spread lies, but at the same time, everybody can also find out the facts as well.
Yes, incentive propaganda is a problem but it is a problem whether it comes from on high (the ruling party) or on low (the people). At least the Internet provides a method that can possibly cut through this web of lies (sadly, not used as often as it should be), which is not an option when information is strictly controlled by the elite. This is its advantage to the people - and its threat to the ruling party.
Except I really don't see what incentive Microsoft has to push people off old versions of Windows.
After fall, most people don't buy "Windows". They buy computers, which happen to have Windows on them. This version of Windows usually is accompanied by a license that specifically states that the version of Windows that came with the computer is not - legally - transferable to another computer. And thanks to the lack of installation CDs and OEM locking , it is increasingly difficult for end users to take a version of Windows that came with their old computer and transfer it to the new one anyway.
Why does this matter? Because based on the above model, Microsoft could keep selling Windows XP, Windows 7 or any old version and it wouldn't affect their bottom line. They are still getting paid by the OEMs to license the software, after all. The money they get from hobbyists who actually buy and install the OS themselves is minimal compared to that.
Well, there is the draw of "new and shiny", except most people don't buy a new computer just because a new OS is available, and - in fact - barely consider the OS features at all. In fact, more often than not the "new and shiny" features of appear detrimental to sales because it takes users out of their comfort zone. They don't care about bling; they just want an OS that works the same as the last one.
And eventually every OS needs a revamp. Crusty code and changing hardware demands it. Service packs can only take you so far; eventually there needs to be a break to provide necessary updates. You could never service pack Windows95 to the point where it was as stable as Windows 7, for instance; there are too many architectural flaws in the older OS. But this sort of radical update isn't needed every year, or possibly even every five years.
So, yeah, I don't understand why Microsoft can't keep making money on its older versions of its software and why it seems so hellbent on forcing people to move in a direction they clearly do not want to go.
He's just saying aloud what a lot of world leaders are thinking.
The internet has created a revolution in information dispersment. No longer do the the Powers That Be have a lock on the news. Even before the Internet, of course, people could bypass the regime's total control of the media (e.g., Soviet samizdats) but even then distribution issues limited how widely alternate views could be spread. Now, thanks to the Internet, it is cheap and easy for anyone to post information onto the internet, and even easier for other people to read it. This isn't without its own problems - both in the flood of available knowledge and the lack of fact-checking - but on the whole it has radically challenged how regimes control what their populace knows and thinks. And this frightens them incredibly.
Ergodan is just voicing what many other rulers - be they third-world dictators or first-world politicians - believe in their hearts. If they had their way, they'd roll things back to the 1980s, before the Internet revolution threw everything into flux.
It would be a perfect trifecta, not only was he violated, his rights, his private property, not only was he threatened with deadly force for ... nothing at all, they should add this one more thing: suing him for wasting THEIR time and resources.
And ten years later, Buttle is erroneously arrested for being a terrorist heating engineer...
Damn, now I have the "Brazil" theme song stuck in my head...
I agree.
I love the idea of "Glass". I'm just wary of the Google part.
Because, let's face it; I think most of us geeks would love to have a HUD that can display any information we need right in front of us without the need for a laptop, tablet or cellphone. There's been many a time I've been somewhere and wished I could just look up some information but didn't have access to a compute (and looking up anything on a phone is frustrating and agonizing). Glass is a step in the direction I want to go (retinal digital implants are next ;-)
What I don't like is Google's - or any major corporation's - involvement, because they will do everything they can to monetize my transactions with the Internet. They'll plaster everything with advertisements and data-mine my searches to create creepy profiles on me.
Get me a glasses-mounted HUD with a dumb connection to the Internet and I'll be happy. Oh, and if you disable the ability to upload videos and pictures to the Internet, then everyone else will be happy too.
Alternately, Microsoft may be intending to do something along the lines of OnLive; that is, render the game on the server (with it's "4-times-the-power-of-a-single-XBoxOne" servers) and then stream the output to the player.
Of course, you still have tremendous latency issues, unless you stick those servers in every ISP across the country (something Microsoft could afford far better than OnLive). With the increased CPU power of the new console, the stream could better compressed, resulting in better picture quality as well.
There are a number of advantages to this for both Microsoft and the developers. Games would no longer be limited by the hardware of the console, for instance, which would not only mean better graphics and larger worlds, but longer life expectancies for the consoles since its hardware doesn't need to be replaced as often (who needs faster GPUs and bigger HDDs when everything is "in the Cloud"?)\. Microsoft can keep selling the same basic model for years, with only minor tweaks and chrome, negating the need for expensive R&D. Publishers get better control of their products; it kills used game sales, they can obsolete older games to create a market for the newer versions, and they can data-mine the players. Plus, Microsoft gets paid for running the servers!
For the customer, there are fewer advantages, of course. But what corporation really cares about what the customers want these days?
1. Gamer A buys Game from Publisher for $60.
2. Gamer A decides they no longer want said Game for whatever reason.
3. Gamer A sells Game to Used Game Shop for ~$30.
4. Gamer B buys Game from Used Game Shop for $60.
5. Used Game Shop gives Publisher ~$10.
Don't forget:
6. Gamer B pays Microsoft additional $10 "reinstallation" fee to actually play his used game.
Not to mention the ability to extinguish an active volcano by freezing it.
'Cause that's what the "cold" in cold fusion means, right?
For those interested: The Borg vs. Microsoft Windows
I'm just hoping that - a few years from now - desktop PCs will be powerful enough to emulate the PS3/XBox360. They've already done amazing things with older consoles (Playstation 1 and 2, Nintendo 64, Genesis, etc).
That way I only need the current console versions hooked up to the TV for new games, and the PC for my back catalog.
I'm amazed at how well my five year old PC plays PS2 games.
Alternately:
Shakespeare was making a lawyer joke
Some highlights from that article:
Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS".
and
The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.
Personally I cannot wait for Abrams to have his stamp on the franchise, and the future directors who will have an insane amount of resources to make hopefully great Star Wars films.
Which is, ironically, one of the visions Lucas originally had for the series.
"With an unlimited number of possible adventures, he [Lucas] could turn it into a bona fide franchise, having new directors have their go in the Star Wars galaxy, each making their own version of it. It could be like a space opera version of James Bond! The adventures could be more stand-alone types like the first film, or could also slowly develop themes and storylines throughout the series, and end in cliffhangers, like the serial episodes the movies were inspired by, or perhaps even follow side characters and different time periods. His [Lucas'] contract only stipulated a trio of films but with Star Wars quickly becoming the most popular film ever made, his plans for it were growing as well."
(The Secret History of Star Wars, Michael Kaminsky, p.148)
I've always believed that's why Lucas was so open to the idea of the extended universe generated by various novels, computer games and comics; it wasn't simply because franchising rights brought him oodles of money but because it was always his intent to create a universe where others could play in too. By giving it to Disney, he's just following the logical conclusion to this dream. He's (hopefully) recognized his days as a movie-maker are behind him but now others can develop the world he created.
The fact that Disney will milk the franchise for all its worth might even be seen as an advantage. Other studios might use it for one or two movies then lock the IP away never to see the light of day again. Disney revisits their franchises fairly frequently.
I'm not really conspiracy minded. But I am rather down - especially today - on the way society is headed (I must be getting old. Damn kids, get off my lawn!). So while I don't believe that there was some organized plot to "Bomb the Marathon" the cynical part of me can't help but rear it's head and think that it didn't get by without crossing some agency's desk somewhere. Too often people - whether they work in the government or not - only look at the immediate goal, and far too often that goal is little better than "do only what is necessary to keep my job". It seems endemic in our culture and this lack of idealism I find increasingly depressing. And, frankly, when it comes to government officials, this lack is quite frightening. We give these people power over our children, our property, our money, our infrastructure and even our lives; in exchange, I hold them to higher standards. But far too often, all we hear about these days is how they have abandoned those standards to betray that trust.*
So, yeah, I'll be the first to admit it's terrible that my mind jumps to these conclusions. I am anything but a libertarian; on the whole, I trust government intervention far, far more than I do the suggested alternatives. But given what's been happening the past few decades, I think I can hardly be blamed for my cynicism.
Anyway, I'm in a dark mood today and this sort of event doesn't make me any more cheery.
* Yeah, this sort of stuff has been happening forever. Our governing bodies have /never/ been as idealistically pure as we've hoped and believed. But there seems to be a uptick in the how self-serving our government officials have become in the past generation or two. The idealism that made this country seems dead - it's all about "me" today, not "us" - and it saddens me.
Don't worry. I won't.
And thank you, I was /well aware/ of what Reuters does. That's why I said the FoxNews article was identical with the one from Reuters, and not the other way around.
But what you don't seem to understand is my objection to news agencies simply copying stories off the wire and posting it as their own, without adding anything new. Essentially, this creates a single picture for the event - the one presented by Reuters. Now, for smaller papers, this is an understandable necessity; they don't have the resources to send a reporter down to Florida or even significantly rework a story. But for the major outlets, including FoxNews? I find this highly objectionable. It also makes me wonder why I should bother with the individual outlets if they are all telling the exact same tale (and I mean exact; almost all the stories are word for word the same).
Now, perhaps you feel this odd desire to have more than one viewpoint on a story makes me a "cancer on society". That's your opinion and welcome to it. News media increasingly is losing the trust of its readers and I think the above may be one of the reasons . Myself, I'd like some more effort put into the news than what I am getting, especially from outlets which purport to be independent and capable of offering better. I apologize if this irrational - and perhaps idealistic - desire of mine offends you. But I'm hardly going to recant because of it.
Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"
Followed by "I wonder if they - the government - was somehow behind this." Not themselves, not directly, but involved. Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism, and not catching him in time. Or turning a blind eye to foreign operatives so they could make a dramatic arrest to further some political goal.
Because while I don't believe most politicians or government employees are so corrupt and disloyal as to let an attack pass on American soil, I increasingly am of the opinion those officials aren't taking a long-enough view to see how their individual actions may affect the nation in the long run. Too often they are so focused on their immediate goal - be it the reduction of crime through semi-legal tactics, ensuring one's agency's budget next year by misallocating funds this year, or improving one's standings in the polls - that they sacrifice the bigger picture, and people are getting hurt because of it. They overlook little evils to pursue what they hope is a good goal, forgetting that not only don't the ends don't justify the means; but that the end itself can become unexpectedly corrupted by those methods.
So, sad as it is, I hope it is just some nut-job who got his hands on too much explosives, but the increasingly cynical part of me worries that it's not. Because the former is just some dumb idiot who thinks this is going to convert people to his cause, while the latter is evidence of just how fucked up our society is.
Either way, the media is going to have a field day with this. It's better than Christmas for them.
I'm sorry. I'm not in the cheeriest of moods today, and then something like this happens that makes me see the worst in the world.
I hope the families are okay.
Mind you, the toys absolutely /sucked/
But I agree; Captain Power was a great show. Its storyline was definitely a step above the average pablum forced unto impressionable young minds at the time: it had an overall story arc that spanned the whole season, main characters who died and an interesting, somewhat scary setting (post-apocalyptic, at the height of the cold war, when the threat of a life-extinguishing nuclear war was still giving young children nightmares). Compare that to the average action-cartoon - where the universe was reset at the end of each episode, the heroes were never at risk and the setting was friendly fantasy - and Captain Power was notably different.
True, the effects, costumes, story and dialogue were notoriously cheesy, but it was a show aimed at 5-10 year old kids. Nonetheless, one can see some of Staczynski's hallmark touches on the series that would later make Babylon 5 so revered (and that nowadays we take for granted in all new TV series). I was always hoping he would sneak a Captain Power reference into B5.
Actually, I was bashing mainstream media as a whole, not just Fox. I /mentioned/ FoxNews because it was one of the two articles used in the summary. If it had been MSNBC I would have dropped their name as well.
I mean, I did suggest people see how /all/ the news articles on Google are word-for-word identical to the Reuters feed. My comment was intended as an indictment of news media as a whole and a warning about how Slashdot should be careful not to fall into the same trap.
Regardless, that is /still/ no excuse for any news organization - FoxNews or otherwise - for simply copying-and-pasting an article from Reuters without adding anything new. It's one thing to use Reuters as a starting point for a story and quite another to just pass it off as your own reporting, which is what happens far, far too often. FoxNews is guilty of this, as are the dozens of other papers, TV shows and news outlets as my suggested search will reveal.
God, I am tired of "you people" standing up for a news organization as if you somehow owe them your loyalty, especially when not one of them gives a damn about you except as a way to sell advertisements..
he didn't answer my question about the greatest TV show in history which he worked on, He-Man and the Master of the Universe
Wait, I thought the greatest show he worked on was Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future
I mean, c'mon; post-apocalyptic future, rogue AIs /and/ power-armor! Beat's a guy in a loincloth slapping around a skull-head and his goons with a rubber sword* any day!
Judge, can we get a ruling here?
* Of course it was made of rubber. Did you /ever/ see it cut anyone, or even bruise? I've owned Nerf weaponry that was more dangerous than He-Man's power sword!
Not that anyone on Slashdot would ever notice (I mean, who reads TFA anyway, much less TWO of them?) but the FoxNews article is almost word-for-word identical to the Reuters article. Yeah, no surprise there (mass media is amazingly lazy), but did we really have to have two links which said exactly the same thing? Well, at least the Wikipedia link had original content...
Although, for fun, try searching Google for "Snails South Florida" and try to find a news article that /isn't/ a rehash of the Reuter's article. It sure is a slick mess!
Which is fine. You are making a judgement as to which is more important to you: a fast pipe and unaltered connection to the Internet, versus a somebody (Google) creating a detailed profile on you based on your browsing habits.
My post was not a judgement between ISPs or Google. There is a trade-off with either. It was merely a clarification that there /is/ a difference between Google's methods and that of most ISPs. The latter are far less focused on data-collection and if that data-collection (and, as importantly, distribution to others) is a concern to you, you may be better off avoiding Google fiber. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the services Google is offering as well.
Frankly, given the choice, I'd take Google Fiber's "free" offerings (up to 5MBit) in a heartbeat and take the money I save and spend it on a proxy that disguises my activities on the web, for the best of both worlds. ;-)
The difference between Google and ISPs is that the latter do not make it a /business/ of removing its users privacy. Yes, they may glean some additional benefit from the process, but it's a far cry from Google, in whose interest it is to know everything there is about you. For ISPs, it is sometimes in their interest to claim ignorance about their user's activities ("Oh, Bob is torrenting copyrighted material 24/7? Hmmm, well, we don't really monitor that sort of thing and anyway, our logs only go back six months..."). Google wants as large a database on each user as possible.
ISPs aren't really that happy that they are being forced to collect info for the government either. They aren't actively resisting (sadly), but if it was something they could opt-out of, you can be sure they would. Data collection is expensive, not only in terms of hardware and software, but in the resultant upset of customers if they learn you are doing it. Even for business use, the data only has limited value because the ISPs are not in advertising; they can use it internally and with a few of their partners, but they don't have the capability to maximize the value of the data. This limits what they can do with the data and how much money they can earn from the data-collection. This finite utility, combined with the cost of the data collection and the potential to upset the customers, restricts the ISPs from going full-bore with stripping user privacy.
Google will never opt-out of data-collection - for themselves or at request of governmental entities - because that is what they do. That is how they make money. Just as data-collection might be a side business to the ISPs, providing internet service is just a side business to Google.
And that is the difference between ISPs and Google.
Its funny though that just a year ago, while Apple was riding high as the world's most valued company, judges were quick to rule in favour of Apple, now judges are just tired of the same old bullshit.
It's actually been more like 1 year, 6 months and six 6 days since the beginning of Apple's decline in the public eye.
What we are seeing is the steady unraveling of Steve Job's reality distortion field (patent pending). Things seem to have been turning around - for the worse - for Apple ever since their blessed founder's death.
They need to carefully search his former office for some fingernail clippings, invest a few billion dollars in human cloning, and get themselves a new Steve Job (an iJob, patent pending) before things go completely tits up. Not to mention they could then sell the process - a sort of immaculate conception (iConception, patent pending) - to any and all comers.
Man, I come up with such good ideas, I don't understand why Cupertino won't answer my calls. ;-)