Microsoft's Robbie Bach saying that 'the video graphics on it aren't very strong; the box itself is kind of underpowered; it doesn't play DVDs; there are a lot of down-line components [that] aren't actually that interesting.... They don't have the graphics horsepower that even Xbox 1 had. So it makes sort of the comparison set a little bit difficult.'
Yep, I'll agree to all but the last sentance. One can easily compare sales and popularity figures.
Kinda that something that can have all those complaints, which are accurate, with such a lousy marketing campaign (come on, two creepy Japanese guys telling a little girl, "Wii would like to play"? There is so much that is wrong with that), could even get 10% of the market share of the current XBox or PS consoles, and yet it does.
Says something rather bad about MS and Sony if anything.
I've yet to see a company ship windows with Corel Photopaint, many don't ship with Nero, or McAffee Enterprise. Often the do ship with Adobe Acrobat, but never with Foxit...
And I uninstall acrobat, and then install the rest.
That's the whole point of having a computer, and it can be done with any OS, as long as the software is available.
Now occasionally a new version of one will break the compatability with another, but I've seen that in OSS software, and while yes, I could fix it in OSS software, I don't (and most people) don't have that kind of time to waste for every application they use, and will end up doing the same thing I would with non OSS software - finding versions that do work.
The author of the article is an idiot or never andministrated massively patched software if he thinks that more frequent and releases would make things easier.
If there is any testing, the majority of it would be redundant between patch stuff, to make sure critical things weren't inadvertantly broken. Say that takes 1 day per patch set, now if there are 10 patch sets in a month instead of 1, you just had 10 days spent.
That being said, while a release-when-done actually make an administrators job harder to keep a system up-to-date with the current patches, it would improve the security of the OS.
Ideally, I'd say something between that and what we have now would be good, once a week patches - not quite frequent/randome dates, but the time between a fix being available and a release would not exceed a week, instead of potentially being up to a month.
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for all the retarded, insulting, annoying, obnoxious commercials.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of commercials (say 75%) that don't make me want to change the channel or mute, but that 25% is just extremely irritating.
Most of the time don't bother flipping the channel or muting during ads - I don't want to miss the few seconds of my show that come on right after the ads. I know a lot of people who are the same way. However, and the same time, there are advertisements that are so annoying, I just have to switch the channel.
Maybe they should consider the problem, not the ads, but the companies that make the horrible ads - and rather than preventing people from switching (coutner productive for all parties), analyze which ads are switched off, and figure out who should be fired.
of course, this is more related to the upcoming 'no change channel during ads' thing that they are planning on putting in TVs (or at least were planning), but it is relevant for this case also.
Oh, and while I'm on this rant. The world is not talking about who will win De Lahoya/Mayweather, unless by talking they mean not giving a damn.
well, one person mentioned them, but it's not applicable in this case due to the nature of the diplomatic ties.
The offices are a relevant point, and if google had offices there, that could work to Thailand's advantage, however, I'm not sure how much they could do other than prevent the company from operating business in THailand - which wouldn't stop people from acessing their servers.
not, get your head out of your ass and start acting civilized please. Being on the internet doesn't give you the right to act like the product of bestiality.
but honestly, I think it was the one this is in reply to...
This mixes up two completely different concepts: the right to be credited for a work, and the right to control distribution of that work. Attribution and copying are not the same thing: those who download songs illegally from the Internet do not typically replace the artist's name with their own, after all, and yet the RIAA is still filing lawsuits. So attribution is not really the issue here (and in general, letting data be copied freely actually helps prevent plagiarism, a topic covered in more detail here). In any case, no one objects to laws that protect credit. By all means, let's prevent the megacorporation from distributing your work without crediting you proportionally. But it would be a misnomer to call such protection "copyright" law, because it wouldn't have much to do with controlling copying. It would be a creditright, because it would simply enforce proper crediting.
OK, that handles/half/ the argument. So credit right isn't a problem. Removing copyright still lets the company take and distribute a GPLed piece of software (or software derived from GPLed software) in binary only format, without source.
That passage also shows a larger problem in Bulmash's piece, which is that, circularly, his language often assumes the very points he's arguing for. He talks of "theft" and "stealing", as though when the megacorporation gets your work, you somehow lose the work. Again, if he had objected to the theft of your credit, that would be perfectly reasonable, since the degree to which someone else claims credit for your work is exactly the degree to which you lose credit. But he's apparently talking about the theft of the work itself, and this makes little sense when applied to works of the mind. If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle; if I copy your computer program, now we both have it.
Actually, this very much goes to the difference between the BSD and GPL licenses, and why many like GPL and hate BSD. Namely, they consider the use of the open source software without keeping the source open, akin to theft. Yes, the original owner and the original source are not lost to the public, but in no way is the source of the derived software available to the public, except the parts of the original software kept unmodified.
Now, if I read the next part, the author then goes on to say there is no natural right to recieve compensation and control the distribution of ones works that can be copyrighted, especially when said distribution does not actually take the original work from the author or distributor
The author of a piece of work put a lot of time and effort into that work. They do have a right to recieve compensation by the people who use the work. Maybe not as much as they think in some cases (*cough* [insert many corporation names here], but the right is there. If you make it, you should have the right to choose how to distribute it; because you can always chose/not to/. It may not be natural, but it is a valid option. A few of my favorite authors write books. I would be *VERY* mad if I saw their books illegally disributed online, or if they lost the ability to make money from the profession because the books couldn't be distributed for a fee. Why? Why would I not like getting my favorite authors books for free? Simply put, because they would have less time to write, needing other jobs, and they would produce less books for me and the other fans to enjoy.
And also people don't have to use the piece of work, they can use the alternatives, if they don't like the cost of your work.
That's not to say that there aren't issues with the system - certain things shouldn't be allowed (i.e. situations where you have something similar to the 'Microsoft Tax' for example).
Oh, and if copyright laws made copying permissible under most circumstances as described in this article, they would still be
because no user would be fooled by the following links in a medium (such as mail) where the link text may be displayed without the domain printed (i.e. just about anywhere not/.)
NOTE: I do not think that these links (not the text, the destination) are real, I just typed out the urls for example
NOTE: AGAIN, just to cover my ass in case one of the links is actually a real site, and malicious, and someone is dumb enough to click: THESE LINKS ARE NOT REAL BANK URLS! THESE LINKS, IF THEY LEAD TO ANYTHING, PROBABLY LEAD TO DANGEROUS SITES BEST NOT VISITED.
I could destroy said fleet with 1 ship of the same size class or possibly 1 lower.
Actually there were several 'all shield arc' weapons, none of which was very good, and all of which can be outdone by other weapons.
The best weapon in the game is a phaser at high enough tech level that you can use auto fire, armor piercing and shield piercing, as well as a couple of the beam weapon boosting mods.
Add a time warp facilitator and a phasing cloak, and you have a nice ship. There's a tactic against that as well though.
Sorry, but this just makes me think of what I did in morrowind once.
I took this dinosaur like creature, made it 3x it's normal hight... Made it ultra-powerful, and stuck it in the middle of the starter villiage. (over 2k HP, I think all the stat/skills were in the hundreds, etc. I can't remember though, it's been a couple years)
This villiagers ran away but not fast enough. The guards ran towards the villiage, and didn't survive long. It was fun to watch.
even with lossey compression, it is possible to do better than a CD..
A CD starts with a certain bit rate and frequency sample rate (I think I'm using the right terms, but probably not in the case of the latter). As such, if you start with something much higher quality, and compress it lossey, same quality, then you in effect, and in certain regards, have better quality (and simultaneously worse quality as well!)
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't saying it's a bad idea to market it to families.
But if I were thinking of family stuff, that whole beginning part would have me way too creeped out to consider the Wii.
Or were you just misrepresenting what I said as a way to troll?
maybe not difficult as in "logically challanging", but difficult as in emotionally painful?
Yep, I'll agree to all but the last sentance. One can easily compare sales and popularity figures.
Kinda that something that can have all those complaints, which are accurate, with such a lousy marketing campaign (come on, two creepy Japanese guys telling a little girl, "Wii would like to play"? There is so much that is wrong with that), could even get 10% of the market share of the current XBox or PS consoles, and yet it does.
Says something rather bad about MS and Sony if anything.
That's an option with any OS though.
I've yet to see a company ship windows with Corel Photopaint, many don't ship with Nero, or McAffee Enterprise. Often the do ship with Adobe Acrobat, but never with Foxit...
And I uninstall acrobat, and then install the rest.
That's the whole point of having a computer, and it can be done with any OS, as long as the software is available.
Now occasionally a new version of one will break the compatability with another, but I've seen that in OSS software, and while yes, I could fix it in OSS software, I don't (and most people) don't have that kind of time to waste for every application they use, and will end up doing the same thing I would with non OSS software - finding versions that do work.
I agree, on both counts
The author of the article is an idiot or never andministrated massively patched software if he thinks that more frequent and releases would make things easier.
If there is any testing, the majority of it would be redundant between patch stuff, to make sure critical things weren't inadvertantly broken. Say that takes 1 day per patch set, now if there are 10 patch sets in a month instead of 1, you just had 10 days spent.
That being said, while a release-when-done actually make an administrators job harder to keep a system up-to-date with the current patches, it would improve the security of the OS.
Ideally, I'd say something between that and what we have now would be good, once a week patches - not quite frequent/randome dates, but the time between a fix being available and a release would not exceed a week, instead of potentially being up to a month.
the two techs could easily be put together in the same car, and make something much more efficient.
certain cable companies have a tendancy to overload their hubs, causing saturation, but not all.
Sadly the continuous delays made me think more of vista...
*cry*
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for all the retarded, insulting, annoying, obnoxious commercials.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of commercials (say 75%) that don't make me want to change the channel or mute, but that 25% is just extremely irritating.
... symptoms?
Most of the time don't bother flipping the channel or muting during ads - I don't want to miss the few seconds of my show that come on right after the ads. I know a lot of people who are the same way. However, and the same time, there are advertisements that are so annoying, I just have to switch the channel.
Maybe they should consider the problem, not the ads, but the companies that make the horrible ads - and rather than preventing people from switching (coutner productive for all parties), analyze which ads are switched off, and figure out who should be fired.
of course, this is more related to the upcoming 'no change channel during ads' thing that they are planning on putting in TVs (or at least were planning), but it is relevant for this case also.
Oh, and while I'm on this rant.
The world is not talking about who will win De Lahoya/Mayweather, unless by talking they mean not giving a damn.
probably, but politicians wouldn't go for it, and sadly it's hard for anyone else to make such rules.
Biologically speaking, you are correct, however I thought US law effectively made a corporate entity a "person" with said rights.
I agree.
Actually, my thoughts are this:
If they waved those rights in their contract, then their argument shouldn't have any weight - they agreed not to tell.
However, if they did not wave those rights in the contracts with customers, then their argument seems sound to me.
nope, no one mentioned them
well, one person mentioned them, but it's not applicable in this case due to the nature of the diplomatic ties.
The offices are a relevant point, and if google had offices there, that could work to Thailand's advantage, however, I'm not sure how much they could do other than prevent the company from operating business in THailand - which wouldn't stop people from acessing their servers.
not, get your head out of your ass and start acting civilized please. Being on the internet doesn't give you the right to act like the product of bestiality.
Get your hands on MooII, Moo3 isn't bad, but 2 is better IMO.
12?????
Geez, I usually use 2 or 3... Of course they are dedicated guardian-busters, and have only the gyro destabilizers and augmented engines...
OK, that handles /half/ the argument. So credit right isn't a problem. Removing copyright still lets the company take and distribute a GPLed piece of software (or software derived from GPLed software) in binary only format, without source.
Actually, this very much goes to the difference between the BSD and GPL licenses, and why many like GPL and hate BSD. Namely, they consider the use of the open source software without keeping the source open, akin to theft. Yes, the original owner and the original source are not lost to the public, but in no way is the source of the derived software available to the public, except the parts of the original software kept unmodified.
/not to/. It may not be natural, but it is a valid option. A few of my favorite authors write books. I would be *VERY* mad if I saw their books illegally disributed online, or if they lost the ability to make money from the profession because the books couldn't be distributed for a fee. Why? Why would I not like getting my favorite authors books for free? Simply put, because they would have less time to write, needing other jobs, and they would produce less books for me and the other fans to enjoy.
Now, if I read the next part, the author then goes on to say there is no natural right to recieve compensation and control the distribution of ones works that can be copyrighted, especially when said distribution does not actually take the original work from the author or distributor
The author of a piece of work put a lot of time and effort into that work. They do have a right to recieve compensation by the people who use the work. Maybe not as much as they think in some cases (*cough* [insert many corporation names here], but the right is there. If you make it, you should have the right to choose how to distribute it; because you can always chose
And also people don't have to use the piece of work, they can use the alternatives, if they don't like the cost of your work.
That's not to say that there aren't issues with the system - certain things shouldn't be allowed (i.e. situations where you have something similar to the 'Microsoft Tax' for example).
Oh, and if copyright laws made copying permissible under most circumstances as described in this article, they would still be
because no user would be fooled by the following links in a medium (such as mail) where the link text may be displayed without the domain printed (i.e. just about anywhere not /.)
NOTE: I do not think that these links (not the text, the destination) are real, I just typed out the urls for example
NOTE: AGAIN, just to cover my ass in case one of the links is actually a real site, and malicious, and someone is dumb enough to click: THESE LINKS ARE NOT REAL BANK URLS! THESE LINKS, IF THEY LEAD TO ANYTHING, PROBABLY LEAD TO DANGEROUS SITES BEST NOT VISITED.
http://www.bankofamerica.bank
http://www.chase.bank
http://www.53.bank
http://intelligent.conversation.bank
etc.
etc.
etc.
They only have a chance of that if YouTube has servers in Thailand
I could destroy said fleet with 1 ship of the same size class or possibly 1 lower.
Actually there were several 'all shield arc' weapons, none of which was very good, and all of which can be outdone by other weapons.
The best weapon in the game is a phaser at high enough tech level that you can use auto fire, armor piercing and shield piercing, as well as a couple of the beam weapon boosting mods.
Add a time warp facilitator and a phasing cloak, and you have a nice ship. There's a tactic against that as well though.
...
Sorry, but this just makes me think of what I did in morrowind once.
I took this dinosaur like creature, made it 3x it's normal hight... Made it ultra-powerful, and stuck it in the middle of the starter villiage. (over 2k HP, I think all the stat/skills were in the hundreds, etc. I can't remember though, it's been a couple years)
This villiagers ran away but not fast enough.
The guards ran towards the villiage, and didn't survive long.
It was fun to watch.
Yeah, it's from 1995, but it's one of the most fun and addictive strategy games I've ever played.
You don't need uber graphics to make a good game.
you are aware that compression can be lossless, right?
Oh, ok, well, now you are. Glad to help.
even with lossey compression, it is possible to do better than a CD..
A CD starts with a certain bit rate and frequency sample rate (I think I'm using the right terms, but probably not in the case of the latter). As such, if you start with something much higher quality, and compress it lossey, same quality, then you in effect, and in certain regards, have better quality (and simultaneously worse quality as well!)
as the other reply said - not all CDs are DRM free.
But also, I don't remember reading/hearing that the higher quality will not be CD quality. It is, in fact, possible, they could have higher quality.