The article alluded to the one benefit bricks and mortar games stores can offer, unfortunately it's one thing Game never got right. It specifically says game stores are needed so that customers can try before they buy, yet Game and Gamestation where always awful for this. If you were lucky there'd be one or two consoles switched on, more often than not the controllers wouldn't be hooked up so there was no "trying" component, and god forbid you ask them to reconnect them or, even worse, throw in a different game to the one that's looping through the start screen demo... not gonna happen. The stores themselves are cramped, every available space crammed with junk merchandise, the staff waver between jumping on you if they think you're looking at a big ticket purchase like a sale or ignoring you if you have questions about anything else (right up until it's time to pay where they'll offer you five or six point of sale offers you're clearly not interested in).
I genuinely think they should make the stores more like a hangout, big comfy sofas, a whole bunch of consoles (with some kind of hub system so you can choose which games you want to try). They could easily stop people abusing it by limiting the amount of time you can play games (have you create some kind of account in store and then use a system similar to OnLive, give you 30 minutes per title to try it out). There's not really any need to have every available shelf space crammed with copies of games, either - use that space to make the place a more inviting venue for customers. I avoid Game stores like a plague as you really feel like cattle, churned through the store (it's so crammed you can only move in one direction), channeled through the point of sale then dumped out onto the street. I'd rather wait two or three days and save money than subject myself to that. Create a more relaxed, fun atmosphere and people will be willing to spend time in your store and that in turn will lead to spending.
We didn't listen to those people during the last 25 years of fossil fuel burning, so why do we need to listen to them now? There will always be fundamentalists at both ends of the spectrum, that doesn't mean the rest of us can't recognise a need to move away from fossil fuel burning and towards cleaner alternatives as a good thing and accept some compromises. It's just a shame big oil's lobbyists prevented us doing so much earlier.
Did you not just answer your own question before you asked it? The reason it's being given away is because your participation is valuable to them. Sure, it might go away at some point, but it's doubtful it will just be turned off without warning. On the other hand solving speech to text is not a trivial thing, especially considering language is constantly evolving, if they're deriving benefit from being able to gather this data then it's not something they'll suddenly stop gaining benefit from in the near future.
Not to mention that the US isn't the only market where they could get a foot in the door. Auctioning of the spectrum is currently a hot topic here in the UK with current and potential new carriers all squabbling about who should be first in line. Given the smaller size of the market and the comparatively large size of business done via mobile/internet (largest ecommerce spend per head in the world) it would be a great proving ground for Google to trial such a service without committing to a larger, logistically more troublesome market right off the bat.
No, this doesn't make sense. If there's some guy selling copies of your work on the local market, and he's an amazing salesman, it's not hypochritical of you to approach him and ask if he wants to sell the real thing instead. If that deal falls through then it's still not hypochritical to go report him to the police. And in any event, one party being a hypochrite bears no weight on the legality or illegality of the other party's actions. I'm certainly not going to stand up and argue in favour of MPAA/RIAA as I think they're vampiric entities that need to be ended, but like GP I feel I'm missing whatever point Dotcom is making.
Maybe we shouldn't have names on ballots at all. Maybe ballots should be a list of the party promises, in random order, re-written by an independent body to remove any rhetoric or identifying information, and people have to actually read and understand the policies they're voting on, not just vote for the tallest guy with the best haircut.
This, to me, is the single biggest issue in politics. There is zero accountability any more. You can basically take a look at the latest exit polls, figure out which way the wind is blowing, promise whatever it takes to get into power and there is nothing in place to ensure you do any of it. Broken election promises seem to be the norm these days. I'd argue for a system where manifesto pledges had to be categorised into "We will definitely do these" and "We will aim to do these", and by law the items in list A have to be implemented (or at least tabled and given full party support in any vote). Make it so that failure to fulfil List A pledges prevents the party forming a government in the next term so there's some real teeth (and of course, give the possibility of a referendum if, for some unforseen reason, the party really does think it can't deliver on a particular promise). We'd quickly see parties re-arranging their goals if they were held accountable for them in this way, it would be interesting to see how many hot topic pormises get pushed into List B, making it clear they were just empty promises. Of course, all of this is a pipe dream, the people who have the power to enact it never will, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
I totally agree, it's a shame in some ways that their roots have given them the piracy tag and this will be used as a means of attack by their political opponents, because what we've really needed for a long time now is a technologically aware party. One who actually understands the basics of, and can see the pitfalls in, many of the poorly thought out, lobbyist-driven laws we're seeing enter the statute books.
Indeed, almost all of the proposed solutions to the big issues (in terms of the environment) are technological solutions. This almost demands a party who recognise that rampant abuse of IP law needs to be reined in so that it's no longer one of the major stumbling blocks to technical innovation.
I wonder how many of those hundreds of millions are still actively using the instant messenger component, since I notice logging into Hotmail seems to log me into web messenger (at least by default) and I assume those instances also count towards this total.
They knew this once, that's why the TARDIS was written to be so unreliable. You couldn't rely on it to go back five minutes and give you time to defuse the bomb or whatever. At best, you point it at a destination in time and space and end up vaguely in the ballpark. This meant you could use it as a device to put the characters in new and interesting situations, but if your plan to save the day relied on getting it into one exact position at one exact time (using it to catch River Song after she jumps out of a tall building in the recent series, for instance), then you'd better go back to the drawing board.
I think Smith could have made a much better doctor if he'd been given the role ten years later. I don't understand the need for ever younger doctors, I'd like to see a return to an older actor with more gravitas. I really liked Tenant, but mainly because he brought something different to the role, I don't want that approach to become the norm.
You missed the part about being cowards or dying all the time. Both Mickey and Rory were protrayed, at least at the start, as bumbling idiots more interested in running away from danger than diving in (and reluctantly being dragged into dangerous situations by their headstrong female companions). Both did eventually get storylines in which they got to play a more heroic role, but then it seems like the interest in doing anything with them tapers out and they either revert to form, or they leave, or we see an event every week that isolates them from the doctor and the female companion who go on to save the day themselves.
That assumption doesn't necessarily hold for a Doctor companion though. He could arrive on an alien planet where the aliens are around our level of technology (and coincidentally speak english!) and it could still work. It could be a little more interesting as the alien could be asking questions about earthlings...
Could be even more interesting than the human companions, who we're meant to believe are both simultaneously brilliant, able to save the universe and solve complex logic problems, but also ask a stream of mundane questions (largely so that unfamiliar concepts can be explained to a varied audience). At least with an alien visitor there would be a reason for asking questions about everyday things. They'd have to be mostly human in appearance though, as the majority of the storylines are centred around human characters (I assume for budgetary reasons) and they'd need to blend in more often than not.
What basic expectation of privacy is there on the internet? The misguided belief that there is privacy is a huge problem for society. If we all acted on the internet as if we had zero expectation of privacy there's a chance we might take security more seriously, or that people might actually be civil toward one another.
Having a partner who works in a hospital and having done some contract work for the national heath service myself, I have to say hospitals have a LONG way to go before they get to this point. They've not even managed to solve this dream of having universal access to patient records and interoperability with purchasing systems etc on wired desktops effectively yet (and the number of times the whole system grinds to a halt and they have to revert to paper is scary).
That's before they have to add in the complication of wireless data access (being ubiquitous enough inside what are often old buildings with incredibly thick walls - most hospitals I've been in are communication black spots - yet not so intrusive that it interferes with medical equipment) and the issue of battery life (the first time a faulty charger results in a tablet dying and essential patient information not being available at a critical juncture, the whole scheme will come under harsh review). They also have the issue that a lot of staff are reticent to even interact with existing technology and are likely to view something even newer and wizzier with a good deal of suspicion (although done right, tablets with a simplified interface might actually help reduce some of that tech nervousness).
Spot on. The problem as I see it is when companies are allowed to have such diverse interests, how do consumers fight back anymore. If Ford do something bad, you can stop buying their cars/parts/paying them for a service. It's not difficult to identify their products and it's relatively easy for you to actively avoid them. In the case of Sony, they have so many fingers in so many pies, you'd need to be on constant alert to avoid putting money into their pockets. Don't like the practices of their music arm? Well good luck buying a TV or camera or phone or pretty much any home media kit or even Blu-Rays or any recordable media in fact, or in car entertainment or going to see a movie or... well, you get the picture. Suddenly avoiding them is a full time job, you have to be an incredibly clued up customer to spot their involvement with some of these products. Even if their music arm takes a battering over this (and past experience tells me they won't), they'd just cover the losses elsewhere until business picked back up. I won't say it wouldn't hurt them a little, but it's not like they have to comply with customer demands or face going out of business. All those people who say "if you stand up to a bully they'll stop bullying you" probably never stood up to a bully. It might work occasionally, but most of the time it'll just get you pounded into the dirt.
Same here, my last Sony purchase was a PS1, and technically I don't think that counts since I bought it second hand with all the games I cared about for it. At least once a year Sony demonstrates how little it cares about either its customers or humanity in general, and every time there is a huge "let's boycott Sony" call, yet they're still there, still doing the same crap. They probably feel by this point that they can never do anything so bad that it wouldn't be forgiven/forgotten - I'd love to see a real groundswell of opinion force a true boycott and see them change their ways (because honestly, some of their products do look nice, you just know if you buy into them they're likely to explode, or have features removed after sale, or be locked down or have rootkits hidden in them, or they'll lose your credit card details, etc).
That's a little harder to disguise on a date though, unless you can somehow contrive to always be sitting down when you meet. Maybe a fake broken leg or something:)
By that logic though, it's impossible for us to buy the record labels' music, because we're not getting the file we paid for, we're getting a copy of a copy of a file at best (assuming both the distribution website makes a copy of the original and my PC downloads a copy of that, in reality there could be many more steps in between). That either means we're buying a license - in which case the license should be transferable regardless of whether we're giving them the original file or a copy OR we're not getting what we paid for and everyone who downloads from legal music services is actually downloading a file they have no rights to. This all just goes to highlight how stupid it is trying to apply physical laws to digital transactions in the first place.
Nope - the contempt is an ongoing offence that lasts while ever you fail to deliver the requested password. Since he has literally no way of delivering said password, his contempt sentence could theoretically be completely open ended (pending either a successful appeal or the judge showing leniency if he believes after X years that whatever is on the drive wouldn't be worth serving this much time for).
That's a little bit different though. It's perfectly normal to have a partition filled with garbage if the drive has seen extensive use (particularly if someone else had the drive before you and may have used a tool to destroy all their data). Having an encrypted file which you claim contains nothing illegal but which you never had a password for because you just created it with a huge random string password and left it sitting on the drive is odd behaviour to say the least. A judge is more likely to believe you in the first scenario than the second, and really contempt comes down to what the judge believes. Give him something to make him unusually suspicious and that's how he's going to react. I wonder if it would help if there were a reason for the huge random encrypted file - maybe if you were working with encryption/decryption and had reason to have a few garbage files around for testing purposes (although I'm not sure what the legality is of working on decryption methods in the first place, never having had to find out).
Let me re-state it again --- I did what I did to protect myself legally.
You're making no sense. To protect yourself legally, you are creating a fake file that looks suspicious and draws attention to your actions when you know that, even under threat of imprisonment without trial, you have no way of unlocking the file to prove your innocence? That's like buying a car for cash, filing off all the identifying marks and number plates, destroying all the paperwork and hiding it under a sheet in a garage to "protect yourself legally" - the police are instantly going to think it's stolen and you have left yourself no way to prove that it's not. If you want to protect yourself legally and the file really doesn't contain anything incriminating and you really don't have the means to decrypt it, why not just delete it?
Killing Napster was the biggest mistake RIAA ever made. Instead of taking advantage of this established, centralised hub of distribution and cutting some good deals for DRM free, inexpensive content, they killed it and caused a slew of replacement sites to rise in its stead. They've been fighting the same battle now for over a decade with no end in site, meanwhile they've slowly been dragged down the route of cheaper, DRM free, convenient content that they could have chosen from the start, and as a result they've alienated a lot of people in the interim.
Slashdot Mirror
The article alluded to the one benefit bricks and mortar games stores can offer, unfortunately it's one thing Game never got right. It specifically says game stores are needed so that customers can try before they buy, yet Game and Gamestation where always awful for this. If you were lucky there'd be one or two consoles switched on, more often than not the controllers wouldn't be hooked up so there was no "trying" component, and god forbid you ask them to reconnect them or, even worse, throw in a different game to the one that's looping through the start screen demo... not gonna happen. The stores themselves are cramped, every available space crammed with junk merchandise, the staff waver between jumping on you if they think you're looking at a big ticket purchase like a sale or ignoring you if you have questions about anything else (right up until it's time to pay where they'll offer you five or six point of sale offers you're clearly not interested in).
I genuinely think they should make the stores more like a hangout, big comfy sofas, a whole bunch of consoles (with some kind of hub system so you can choose which games you want to try). They could easily stop people abusing it by limiting the amount of time you can play games (have you create some kind of account in store and then use a system similar to OnLive, give you 30 minutes per title to try it out). There's not really any need to have every available shelf space crammed with copies of games, either - use that space to make the place a more inviting venue for customers. I avoid Game stores like a plague as you really feel like cattle, churned through the store (it's so crammed you can only move in one direction), channeled through the point of sale then dumped out onto the street. I'd rather wait two or three days and save money than subject myself to that. Create a more relaxed, fun atmosphere and people will be willing to spend time in your store and that in turn will lead to spending.
We didn't listen to those people during the last 25 years of fossil fuel burning, so why do we need to listen to them now? There will always be fundamentalists at both ends of the spectrum, that doesn't mean the rest of us can't recognise a need to move away from fossil fuel burning and towards cleaner alternatives as a good thing and accept some compromises. It's just a shame big oil's lobbyists prevented us doing so much earlier.
Did you not just answer your own question before you asked it? The reason it's being given away is because your participation is valuable to them. Sure, it might go away at some point, but it's doubtful it will just be turned off without warning. On the other hand solving speech to text is not a trivial thing, especially considering language is constantly evolving, if they're deriving benefit from being able to gather this data then it's not something they'll suddenly stop gaining benefit from in the near future.
Not to mention that the US isn't the only market where they could get a foot in the door. Auctioning of the spectrum is currently a hot topic here in the UK with current and potential new carriers all squabbling about who should be first in line. Given the smaller size of the market and the comparatively large size of business done via mobile/internet (largest ecommerce spend per head in the world) it would be a great proving ground for Google to trial such a service without committing to a larger, logistically more troublesome market right off the bat.
No, this doesn't make sense. If there's some guy selling copies of your work on the local market, and he's an amazing salesman, it's not hypochritical of you to approach him and ask if he wants to sell the real thing instead. If that deal falls through then it's still not hypochritical to go report him to the police. And in any event, one party being a hypochrite bears no weight on the legality or illegality of the other party's actions. I'm certainly not going to stand up and argue in favour of MPAA/RIAA as I think they're vampiric entities that need to be ended, but like GP I feel I'm missing whatever point Dotcom is making.
Maybe we shouldn't have names on ballots at all. Maybe ballots should be a list of the party promises, in random order, re-written by an independent body to remove any rhetoric or identifying information, and people have to actually read and understand the policies they're voting on, not just vote for the tallest guy with the best haircut.
This, to me, is the single biggest issue in politics. There is zero accountability any more. You can basically take a look at the latest exit polls, figure out which way the wind is blowing, promise whatever it takes to get into power and there is nothing in place to ensure you do any of it. Broken election promises seem to be the norm these days. I'd argue for a system where manifesto pledges had to be categorised into "We will definitely do these" and "We will aim to do these", and by law the items in list A have to be implemented (or at least tabled and given full party support in any vote). Make it so that failure to fulfil List A pledges prevents the party forming a government in the next term so there's some real teeth (and of course, give the possibility of a referendum if, for some unforseen reason, the party really does think it can't deliver on a particular promise). We'd quickly see parties re-arranging their goals if they were held accountable for them in this way, it would be interesting to see how many hot topic pormises get pushed into List B, making it clear they were just empty promises. Of course, all of this is a pipe dream, the people who have the power to enact it never will, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
I totally agree, it's a shame in some ways that their roots have given them the piracy tag and this will be used as a means of attack by their political opponents, because what we've really needed for a long time now is a technologically aware party. One who actually understands the basics of, and can see the pitfalls in, many of the poorly thought out, lobbyist-driven laws we're seeing enter the statute books.
Indeed, almost all of the proposed solutions to the big issues (in terms of the environment) are technological solutions. This almost demands a party who recognise that rampant abuse of IP law needs to be reined in so that it's no longer one of the major stumbling blocks to technical innovation.
I wonder how many of those hundreds of millions are still actively using the instant messenger component, since I notice logging into Hotmail seems to log me into web messenger (at least by default) and I assume those instances also count towards this total.
They knew this once, that's why the TARDIS was written to be so unreliable. You couldn't rely on it to go back five minutes and give you time to defuse the bomb or whatever. At best, you point it at a destination in time and space and end up vaguely in the ballpark. This meant you could use it as a device to put the characters in new and interesting situations, but if your plan to save the day relied on getting it into one exact position at one exact time (using it to catch River Song after she jumps out of a tall building in the recent series, for instance), then you'd better go back to the drawing board.
I think Smith could have made a much better doctor if he'd been given the role ten years later. I don't understand the need for ever younger doctors, I'd like to see a return to an older actor with more gravitas. I really liked Tenant, but mainly because he brought something different to the role, I don't want that approach to become the norm.
You missed the part about being cowards or dying all the time. Both Mickey and Rory were protrayed, at least at the start, as bumbling idiots more interested in running away from danger than diving in (and reluctantly being dragged into dangerous situations by their headstrong female companions). Both did eventually get storylines in which they got to play a more heroic role, but then it seems like the interest in doing anything with them tapers out and they either revert to form, or they leave, or we see an event every week that isolates them from the doctor and the female companion who go on to save the day themselves.
That assumption doesn't necessarily hold for a Doctor companion though. He could arrive on an alien planet where the aliens are around our level of technology (and coincidentally speak english!) and it could still work. It could be a little more interesting as the alien could be asking questions about earthlings...
Could be even more interesting than the human companions, who we're meant to believe are both simultaneously brilliant, able to save the universe and solve complex logic problems, but also ask a stream of mundane questions (largely so that unfamiliar concepts can be explained to a varied audience). At least with an alien visitor there would be a reason for asking questions about everyday things. They'd have to be mostly human in appearance though, as the majority of the storylines are centred around human characters (I assume for budgetary reasons) and they'd need to blend in more often than not.
What basic expectation of privacy is there on the internet? The misguided belief that there is privacy is a huge problem for society. If we all acted on the internet as if we had zero expectation of privacy there's a chance we might take security more seriously, or that people might actually be civil toward one another.
Having a partner who works in a hospital and having done some contract work for the national heath service myself, I have to say hospitals have a LONG way to go before they get to this point. They've not even managed to solve this dream of having universal access to patient records and interoperability with purchasing systems etc on wired desktops effectively yet (and the number of times the whole system grinds to a halt and they have to revert to paper is scary).
That's before they have to add in the complication of wireless data access (being ubiquitous enough inside what are often old buildings with incredibly thick walls - most hospitals I've been in are communication black spots - yet not so intrusive that it interferes with medical equipment) and the issue of battery life (the first time a faulty charger results in a tablet dying and essential patient information not being available at a critical juncture, the whole scheme will come under harsh review). They also have the issue that a lot of staff are reticent to even interact with existing technology and are likely to view something even newer and wizzier with a good deal of suspicion (although done right, tablets with a simplified interface might actually help reduce some of that tech nervousness).
Spot on. The problem as I see it is when companies are allowed to have such diverse interests, how do consumers fight back anymore. If Ford do something bad, you can stop buying their cars/parts/paying them for a service. It's not difficult to identify their products and it's relatively easy for you to actively avoid them. In the case of Sony, they have so many fingers in so many pies, you'd need to be on constant alert to avoid putting money into their pockets. Don't like the practices of their music arm? Well good luck buying a TV or camera or phone or pretty much any home media kit or even Blu-Rays or any recordable media in fact, or in car entertainment or going to see a movie or ... well, you get the picture. Suddenly avoiding them is a full time job, you have to be an incredibly clued up customer to spot their involvement with some of these products. Even if their music arm takes a battering over this (and past experience tells me they won't), they'd just cover the losses elsewhere until business picked back up. I won't say it wouldn't hurt them a little, but it's not like they have to comply with customer demands or face going out of business. All those people who say "if you stand up to a bully they'll stop bullying you" probably never stood up to a bully. It might work occasionally, but most of the time it'll just get you pounded into the dirt.
Same here, my last Sony purchase was a PS1, and technically I don't think that counts since I bought it second hand with all the games I cared about for it. At least once a year Sony demonstrates how little it cares about either its customers or humanity in general, and every time there is a huge "let's boycott Sony" call, yet they're still there, still doing the same crap. They probably feel by this point that they can never do anything so bad that it wouldn't be forgiven/forgotten - I'd love to see a real groundswell of opinion force a true boycott and see them change their ways (because honestly, some of their products do look nice, you just know if you buy into them they're likely to explode, or have features removed after sale, or be locked down or have rootkits hidden in them, or they'll lose your credit card details, etc).
That's a little harder to disguise on a date though, unless you can somehow contrive to always be sitting down when you meet. Maybe a fake broken leg or something :)
By that logic though, it's impossible for us to buy the record labels' music, because we're not getting the file we paid for, we're getting a copy of a copy of a file at best (assuming both the distribution website makes a copy of the original and my PC downloads a copy of that, in reality there could be many more steps in between). That either means we're buying a license - in which case the license should be transferable regardless of whether we're giving them the original file or a copy OR we're not getting what we paid for and everyone who downloads from legal music services is actually downloading a file they have no rights to. This all just goes to highlight how stupid it is trying to apply physical laws to digital transactions in the first place.
Nope - the contempt is an ongoing offence that lasts while ever you fail to deliver the requested password. Since he has literally no way of delivering said password, his contempt sentence could theoretically be completely open ended (pending either a successful appeal or the judge showing leniency if he believes after X years that whatever is on the drive wouldn't be worth serving this much time for).
That's a little bit different though. It's perfectly normal to have a partition filled with garbage if the drive has seen extensive use (particularly if someone else had the drive before you and may have used a tool to destroy all their data). Having an encrypted file which you claim contains nothing illegal but which you never had a password for because you just created it with a huge random string password and left it sitting on the drive is odd behaviour to say the least. A judge is more likely to believe you in the first scenario than the second, and really contempt comes down to what the judge believes. Give him something to make him unusually suspicious and that's how he's going to react. I wonder if it would help if there were a reason for the huge random encrypted file - maybe if you were working with encryption/decryption and had reason to have a few garbage files around for testing purposes (although I'm not sure what the legality is of working on decryption methods in the first place, never having had to find out).
Probably worse than that even, since most safes can be brute forced more easily than a 60+ digit randomly generated password.
Let me re-state it again --- I did what I did to protect myself legally.
You're making no sense. To protect yourself legally, you are creating a fake file that looks suspicious and draws attention to your actions when you know that, even under threat of imprisonment without trial, you have no way of unlocking the file to prove your innocence? That's like buying a car for cash, filing off all the identifying marks and number plates, destroying all the paperwork and hiding it under a sheet in a garage to "protect yourself legally" - the police are instantly going to think it's stolen and you have left yourself no way to prove that it's not. If you want to protect yourself legally and the file really doesn't contain anything incriminating and you really don't have the means to decrypt it, why not just delete it?
Killing Napster was the biggest mistake RIAA ever made. Instead of taking advantage of this established, centralised hub of distribution and cutting some good deals for DRM free, inexpensive content, they killed it and caused a slew of replacement sites to rise in its stead. They've been fighting the same battle now for over a decade with no end in site, meanwhile they've slowly been dragged down the route of cheaper, DRM free, convenient content that they could have chosen from the start, and as a result they've alienated a lot of people in the interim.