Re: Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
Go for it, make more competition among ISPs without government intervention. Please explain your "better ways" and how we can force ISPs to compete even though they already have agreements with each other specifically designed to prevent real competition.
What are you going to do, boycott the internet? Let me know how that works out...I'll wait for you to go to the public library to let us know. I hope you don't run any sort of modern business, because by taking yourself offline you pretty much took yourself out of business.
I hate this sort of logic. It's like saying that we should remove all regulation from the banking industry and Wall Street, because we don't want that dirty government interfering with our money. Guess what? The government pulled back banking regulations...and look how well that turned out.
Competition can only exist when everyone is playing by the same rules. This is common sense, and why "free market capitalism" doesn't work in real life. It's why we have referees in sports and don't assume everyone is going to play by the rules just because they know them.
It's an irrelevant point anyway. The FCC wouldn't be regulating the "internet." They'd be regulating ISPs. There's a difference. One is the FCC saying that AT&T isn't allowed to prevent you from calling someone with your phone because they're on a different network. The other is the FCC regulating what you say. The FCC has never done the latter for phones, and I have no idea why people would somehow magically think that applying a subset of those rules to the internet would change things.
It's a fallacy to reject an argument based on its source, and way too many people are doing that because Obama and the government are involved.
You need more of a solution than "there needs to be X". These things don't just happen by themselves. If you don't have a method for causing ISPs to compete, there is no reason to believe the current situation will change. Preventing abuse and fraud are exactly the what the government should be doing, not all this other crap we have them doing. The fact that so many people don't want to allow one of the primary functions of government boggles my mind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Smart phones are great handheld gaming devices"
Um, most games (if you're thinking of Mario games) that use this mechanic base it off the time you hold down the button, not the pressure used.
Either way, it's a moot point, because emulators already play all these games on smartphones, and they play just fine. Could they be better with a bit of modification specifically with touch screens in mind? Absolutely. But I've played everything from Super Mario to Donkey Kong Country to Starfox on a smartphone and they take about thirty seconds to get used to.
Sure, an actual controller is preferred (and Bluetooth controllers are available for a fraction of the price of a handheld console...) but it's playable, and for turn-based games (the Final Fantasy games come to mind) the control issues are almost non-existent.
People don't play smartphone games for the quality gaming experience. They play smartphone games because they're bored sitting around somewhere and already have their phone in their pocket, and it's better than staring at the wall.
Also, if a game is designed from the ground up with a touchscreen in mind, there's no reason why it can't work well. Games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush are a great example, as are most games that can be played easily with just a mouse (low precision), like tactical strategy games or board games.
If a person has a smartphone, and they're traveling, 99% of the time they will have the smartphone with them. Also, most people will justify the cost of the smartphone due to the versatility and usefulness of the device. Neither are true of handheld gaming devices. Handhelds require you to have the device on hand (and deal with it's crappy battery life, often a proprietary charging plug which also must be carried, and headphones if you want sound for all their fancy games). They are also a purchase you may not otherwise make.
So yes, from a pure gaming standpoint, a 3DS or Vita are vastly superior to a smartphone. But from a convenience and availability standpoint? Smartphones win by a landslide.
And based on the market, I think we can safely say that more people are looking for convenience and availability over fancy graphics and buttons.
I would argue that this isn't strictly true. Most consoles are sold at a loss (the hardware is more expensive to create than the price). For example, the Wii, probably one of the most efficient cost-to-profit consoles ever made, reportedly only made about $6 per unit sold. Console developers sell the hardware at a loss with the expectation of making up the difference in game sales.
By this logic, anything that causes your games to be sold more will make you more profit. By selling their games on smartphones, they are making money on something they aren't actually selling now.
It's more likely that Nintendo is trying to get people to have smartphone games on their portables to encourage people to buy the hardware, then buy their games because they already have the console. I just think they're overvaluing the attraction of being able to play Angry Birds on the DS.
This doesn't really matter in my opinion. Either way, the person has been "heard" and thus feels like they made their point. In turn, this makes them feel more engaged with the subject.
Likewise, people who already have their mind made up aren't really the target audience. In your example, if one person asserts "God is real!" and it's followed by "God is fake!" neither are really adding anything to the discussion, and most people are either going to recognize this or ignore the one they don't already agree with.
What news organizations should be looking for are the few people that identify flaws or add additional clarity. One of the reasons I love Techdirt is because the authors are really good at this; I've seen numerous times where articles are updated due to reader comments and others where the author clarifies or defends their position in the comments. This does a lot to add confidence that you're getting a good, thoughtful analysis...after all, if everyone reading the article can't find any issues, it's reasonable to assume their journalism was at least not sloppy.
I honestly read Techdirt almost as much for the debates in the comments as the actual topics, and have learned almost as much from them. News should exist to inform, and, by proxy, educate people about topics the journalists believe are important for others to know. Which teaches someone more...just reading an article, or researching one to defend or attack it because you believe it's correct (or someone else is incorrect)?
We're already living in a world where ignorance on topics is no longer accepted. We have tons of information at our fingertips, and more and more people are having discussions where true and false are easily and instantly verifiable.
My wife went on a walk with a friend of hers the other day, and some brief political discussion came up, and Obama was mentioned. My wife's friend said (I wish I were making this up) "Obama? I know that name, is he a singer?"
There's no excuse for this level of ignorance anymore. Comments sections are a tool for people to sort through the validity of things, and as far as I'm concerned, an article without comments is an article that's trying to distort the truth. Otherwise, why would they be worried about people proving them wrong?
Last thought...just because a comment is voted down (or here, reported) does not mean the comment wasn't valuable. For example, when some idiot spouts their drivel about how "Mike loves pirates because X and Y" it generally ends up with twenty more people linking to sources that indicate that person is full of crap. That means that anyone reading the article who wasn't sure can now verify it for themselves.
It's more like paying $6 for the sandwich, then Subway charges you $3 more if you want it in the next hour because there's a long line. Then they hand you half the sandwich because they didn't stock enough ingredients and other people already used them. Unless you ordered a ham sandwich, because the company that sells ham paid extra, and now they suddenly have enough ingredients for a whole sandwich.
The issue is that with the ISP is that it's pretty much all fixed costs. If the ISP is going to build an infrastructure to support a minimum level of service, the money they pay into it is effectively a fixed cost. They can't pay the technicians less, or buy less of their equipment, or install less lines.
I'm not saying that the fixed costs don't exist. I'm saying that the fixed costs are reliant on meeting the demand for bandwidth capacity at the maximum capacity required. If less bandwidth is used, the ISPs still have to pay the same fixed costs.
That's why paying a monthly fee for a certain bandwidth capacity makes perfect sense. If I want 50 mbps, I pay the company for that capability, and I'm paying to account for their fixed costs. They now have a fixed revenue stream to account for my requirement.
So what you're telling me is that ISPs are operating at a loss of fixed costs, and having to charge extra for imaginary costs to make up for it. I pay $110 per month for 100 mbps internet access. I rarely get 100 mbps, but I usually stay over 50. You're saying that my $110 per month, along with all the other customers, is not enough to cover their fixed costs?
AT&T spent $19 Billion in one year on their network.
Yeah, so? AT&T also received over $128 billion in revenue, meaning less than 15% of their net income went to improving their network. And you're telling me they can't afford to spend more on giving me the service they've advertised?
Maybe if I were spending $20 per month on my internet and they needed extra revenue to cover the network upgrades and still make a profit I might accept their logic, even knowing the charges were bogus. But since I know they have a huge income and less than a fifth is going to improving my service, I'm not paying a fifth of the price, and there's no technical reason to charge per gigabyte when I'm already paying for bandwidth in megabits per second, I can't wrap my head in the knots required to eat their bull**** sandwich.
It's not an assumption. Burden of proof, without evidence, is on those asserting a new claim. Once evidence is presented that a claim is true, the burden of proof shifts to those arguing against the claim. If evidence indicates more strongly that the claim is false, the burden of proof shifts back, etc.
There have never been any studies that have shown a connection between violent media and actual violence. There have been a couple that have shown a slight increase in aggression by those who play violent video games immediately after playing (no long term effects were observed). Later studies demonstrated that this increase only applied to competitive and aggressive games; cooperative violent video games actually decreased aggression.
Read the sources carefully, and keep in mind that an increase in aggression does not necessarily lead to violence. Also keep in mind that there is a strong correlation between competition and increased aggression. Then compare the studied games and determine whether or not competition, either against other players or virtual opponents, existed in those games.
In general, the rate of violent crime has decreased over the last 50 years. Also, the rate of violent video games, and the graphic depiction of violence, has skyrocketed. Between the studies and general facts, there is no solid evidence that video games cause violence, and never really has been.
Therefore the burden of proof is with those who are trying to claim that violent video games cause violence as they are trying to assert a claim that has been refuted by the evidence we have available. Opponents can argue with this "assumption" until they're blue in the face but disagreeing where the burden of proof lies is irrelevant to the facts.
In short: For fair biz, each packet needs to be billed the same fair rate, somebody needs to pay, and Sponsored Data should get the same prioritization as regular data. So long as somebody pays, there is no preference, there are just different biz models.
But this is exactly why it's a scam. The entire thing is a scam. There is absolutely no reason to pay for "packets." It doesn't matter how much total data I use.
Here's an example. Let's say the capacity of AT&T's network is some random number, like 100 gigabytes per second (purposefully not using bits). Let's say all other users with me on that network are using 70 gigabytes/sec. I use (in my imaginary world with impossible speeds) 1 gigabytes/sec of that, maximum.
If I use all of my bandwidth all the time, AT&T is still under capacity. All it costs them is the tiny fraction of my bill that pays for the electricity needed for my portion of data transfer. If I download at max capacity every day for a month, I download roughly 2,592 terabytes of data. If I download at max capacity for a week, and then shut off my computer for the rest of the month, I only use about 60 terabytes.
Other than the difference in electricity, which again is miniscule (and more than covered by your bill, either way), AT&T isn't paying a cent for the 2,500 extra terabytes you downloaded. The network pays for it's bandwidth capacity (the maximum speed it can sustain at a given point in time) not it's network throughput (how much data actually passes through the network).
This is the lie that makes the ludicrous seem reasonable. If you accept the lie that having, say, Netflix pay for your 250 gb of movie watching means you don't have to pay for it that sounds good for you. If you accept the lie that Pandora is now paying for your streaming music, it sounds good for you.
Unfortunately, the lie is the key. Without the lie, important questions start getting asked, like, "well, if I can stream Pandora at max bandwidth all the time without overloading your network, why can't you stream, say, Sony Music instead?" Or "if I'm paying for my 50 mbps download rates, why does Netflix also have to pay for the capacity I'm already paying for?" And finally the most important question: "if using more data than I'm allocated costs more money, why doesn't using less mean I pay less?"
Right, because it's a BS metric. Now, before techies start arguing about how this isn't 100% true (transmission costs, maintenance, technicians, and improving infrastructure all have non-zero costs) keep in mind that most of these costs are independent of the amount of data transmitted. You'll see analysis indicating that transmitting 1 gb of data costs anywhere from 1 cent to 10 cents but most of these calculations are based on average bandwidth infrastructure and the numerous fixed costs above.
The key point is that those costs exist whether an individual uses 1 gb of data or 1 mb of data, making the metric mostly imaginary (sort of like calculating the miles per gallon efficiency of an electric car; while it may give you a perspective on efficiency, it's ultimately comparing apples to oranges and doesn't accurately reflect the comparison between the two).
"Fair biz" only works when the game isn't already completely rigged in favor of the house.
Setting aside the single, percussion-like occasions when some horrific violent act occurs, like, say, Sandy Hook, where is all this violence?
I find it interesting you used the example of Sandy Hook. Media outlets initially linked Adam Lanza (the shooter) with violent video games. Police investigation, however, revealed that Lanza had similar amounts of nonviolent video games, and according to some statements, preferred to play games like Mario and Dance Dance Revolution. The police concluded there was no connection between video games and Lanza's motives.
Other shootings have shown similar things. There have been decent links found between violence and mental health issues, abuse, and extremism (racial hatred, religion, etc.).
But violent media? Not really. Whatever, people used to think that chess caused violence. Actually, that turned out to be somewhat true, except it was the people that played chess who received the violence, not who were violent themselves. Yay bullies.
This is a cop out argument. "We can't understand something perfectly, so all science related to it is bogus!"
That's crap. Psychology and sociology are legitimate scientific fields. By this logic, no science is legitimate. I can guarantee in 50 years every single field of science will learn something new or disprove a previously understood theory, from physics to geology to astronomy to chemistry. All of those sciences are dealing with "quadrillions of interlinking variables interacting with each other" (actually, compared to astronomy and physics the human brain is easy to account for variables...).
This is part of the scientific process. A hypothesis was raised; "violent media causes an increased level of violent behavior in those who engage with it." Now there are scientists attempting to validate the hypothesis with experimental data. And just like many other fields, you can't exactly use a school science project to determine one way or another; it's not like you can simulate a star's fusion or observe evolution in progress; we have to make conclusions based on incomplete data and what we can observe.
I hate it when people hide behind the mock-intellectual fallacy of "well, science doesn't understand all the variables, so don't believe what you read!" While you should always be skeptical and verify sources, just because something is complex does not make it false or useless to study.
The annoying part about this is that child porn is considered such a huge deal. Now, before all the strange looks, bear with me; child sexual abuse is a horrific crime. There are few things in my mind worse then violence against children.
Child porn, however, is not actually harming any children, any more than a beheading video is killing someone. It's evidence of a crime, and just as snuff videos will be used by sick individuals for their own fantasies, child porn is used by disturbed people.
The problem is that we've made child porn into such a pariah that even mentioning it causes people to look at you funny. Possess some? Your future is done. You're looking at jail time and a lifetime stigma. Keep in mind this is just for the possessing the record...not the act itself.
Why is this a problem? Because child porn is evidence of a crime. What happens when you make possessing evidence illegal to an irrational degree? Well, kind of like punishing hackers for revealing security flaws, you get people who may find child porn and, rather than report it to the authorities, they immediately delete it and pretend it never happened.
So, instead of an investigation which could potentially lead to the arrest of a child abuser, we have a child abuser free to harm more children. Not only that, but if the person was actually seeking child porn, and turns themselves in, rather than punishing them, why not get them some therapy?
Although it's not a perfect analogy, that's kind of like jailing someone for trying to quit drinking because, hey, they're obviously an alcoholic. And isn't it at least possible that, with some therapy, someone who eventually becomes a child molester could have been handled before any children were harmed?
I believe that due to our focus on crushing child pornography we've lost sight of the real tragedy...the act the pornography recorded. It depresses me that, as a society, we're focused more on punishing people for evidence of a crime than the crime itself, and that we discourage mentally ill people from getting the help they need by making their illness, rather than the act, illegal.
Also, for someone to be convicted of speech that could cause "clear and present danger" (a term also later discarded) there must be evidence that individuals were likely follow the suggestion.
I'm a bit baffled by the debate on this. Rappers encourage listeners to commit sexual assault, murder police, and other violent acts, yet we haven't arrested them for "hate crimes." We don't arrest them because it's extremely unlikely for listeners to follow those actions.
By the logic the French use here, Techdirt should be arrested for hate speech too. After all, they quoted the offending hashtag, and you all read it, so obviously you're about to go out burning people, right?
Of course not. A blanket post on Twitter to "violence" is extremely unlikely to cause actual violence. If anything it will cause a bunch of #LookAtThisIdiot responses. Even for the bigots that are following these guys I doubt they're going to log on and see "burn all the gays!" and think "Hey, that's a good idea, time to get the lighter!" And if they do, well, they were probably already going to do it. People aren't that open to suggestion.
This is censorship, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with protecting any group and preventing violence. They've found a way to enforce their values and they've decided to use it. We can gripe back and forth about "hate speech" all we want but until you can show a casual link between saying "burn the gays!" and actual violence taking place, or real plans to commit violence, we're aren't talking about violence; we're talking about speech.
And arresting people for speech is, by definition, a form of censorship that directly opposes freedom of speech.
Not really the right place for this, but if you don't understand "all this" then it's probably fine to upgrade. If you aren't planning to root your phone (or don't know what that means) the Note 4 is a pure upgrade.
To my knowledge, however, the Note 4 is rootable. I've had both (Note 2 and 4) and find the 4 is a significant upgrade over the 2. The screen is amazing, the camera is fantastic, and the S-Pen is far more useful and accurate. So far the battery life has been better, and I'm a fan of the "Private Mode" with fingerprint unlock to secure private data but leave the phone able to unlock quickly for normal use.
Granted, I haven't rooted my phone as I've found the default interface works fine for my purposes and any advanced features I want are easily covered by Tasker even without root. Rooting is only useful if you're going to use it for a specific purpose, otherwise it's really a waste of time.
I appreciate that it's available, and if I found some software that could only be used rooted that I wanted, I'd root in a heartbeat. But between Tasker and the fact that Wi-Fi tethering no longer requires root (I use my Note 4's 4g to give internet connection wirelessly to my Nvidia Shield Tablet) I haven't seen much point.
Overall Android is only restrictive if you're a power-user interested in the absolute limits of your device. For the average user you probably wouldn't even notice the difference between your rooted and standard phone, and even for power-users there's a surprising amount you can do even without root. I wouldn't worry about it, but it's nice to have the option.
It's refreshing to see a developer who understands that someone who pirates your game isn't necessarily a lost sale. The developer has lost nothing by giving this guy the go-ahead to pirate his game; after all, it's not being sold where he lives, so if the guy didn't pirate it, his net profit is still zero.
He stands to gain a fan, however, and now (probably unintentionally) good publicity. That fan is someone who is going to watch out for any new games he releases which aren't banned in Australia, and by being open he's probably gained a life-long customer.
It's a lesson more companies really need to consider. We're so focused on short-term gains we seem to forget the concept of investing in the future. For video games, customers are a far more valuable commodity than sales. Think of companies like Blizzard, which until some poor decisions with Diablo III, had millions of people buying their games on the reputation of the company alone. Heck, it was so good that even Diablo III couldn't ruin their reputation (and the excellent expansion certainly helped).
My recommendation to any content creator is this: build your reputation and a fan base first, and always keep your focus on what's best for your customer, not you. Focus also on the product, and making it the best you can. A good product, from a creator willing to engage with their community, is going to be very valuable to your customers. You have to create value for those willing and able to pay you for your product; you can't demand that you deserve value.
I was thinking primarily in terms of cable, not wireless, but either way it doesn't change my point. In fact, for wireless, data caps have even less relevance because if the limit is the number of users connected it doesn't matter how much data they're using at all. Therefore charging for data used makes no sense from a technical standpoint.
I'd love to see a technical reason why data caps are necessary, but so far it doesn't make sense.
The "rollover" plans really irritate me. They run along the same lines as "sponsored data" programs (an internet company pays your ISP to grant you unlimited data for their product) and "unlimited streaming" programs. They'd all make sense IF data was a limited or costly resource.
The truth is that data doesn't cost the ISPs anything. It's an imaginary resource. Bandwidth is the amount of data transferred per second and only has relevance within that specific point in time. Somehow the ISPs have convinced people that data matters. It doesn't. Before the techies start shouting out "well, wait a minute..." let me explain.
The original idea behind data caps (beyond the "let's get more money for nothing" part) is that if people are worried about their data limits they'll tend to use less data at any given time. In other words, they'll "save" it so they don't run out. By encouraging end users to use less data overall, the hope was that it would alleviate the peaks so they didn't have to create a huge infrastructure to handle the spikes.
So what's the issue with these programs? They only work when you assume data is a limit, not bandwidth. Letting you "save up" data does nothing to alleviate bandwidth issues. To give a better example, consider two users...the first downloads 20 gb of data per day for 30 days, and the second downloads 100 gb of data per day for 5 days, then doesn't download anything for the rest of the month. Which one causes more bandwidth problems?
The second. During that period, this user creates a much higher load on the ISPs than the first user. In a perfect world, everyone would use exactly the same amount of bandwidth at all times. This doesn't happen, though; we all browse and download/stream in spikes, and usually all around the same times of day. Yet if you believe that data is a limited resource, the second user only used 500 gb of data, and the first used 600 gb, so clearly the first is causing the internet to slow down for more people, right? Nope.
Unlimited data plans for a specific service work the same way. If I use T-Mobile I can stream, say, 250 gb of music from Pandora or Google Play, but what if I wanted to stream 250 gb from Jango or Sony Music Unlimited? I hit my data cap. But if you think about it, the actual load on the T-Mobile servers is identical regardless of which streaming service I use.
If that's the case, why can't you just let me stream whatever I want? It works if I use your approved stuff, so clearly you have the capacity.
Oh, right, because the whole problem is BS and a money grab. I forgot.
This is one of the reasons that forcing someone to reveal their password isn't foolproof. There's no guarantee that what is revealed is everything in the encrypted volume, and (to my knowledge) there's no way to identify the difference between encrypted free space and a hidden volume.
This is pretty common for individuals living in oppressive countries; they fill an encrypted volume with personal, but not necessarily dangerous, information (bank information, personal photos, etc.) and then a hidden drive with the actual dangerous stuff (dissenting articles, banned books, etc.). If forced to give up their password, they can comply using the outer drive password, and there's no technical way to determine that they are lying (unless they were sloppy and left evidence of the encrypted files on unencrypted parts of the system, like having "FreeTibet.doc" in their Word history with the document saved on the hidden drive...it would make it obvious there's more file available).
Anyway, I think the real issue they have with encryption is not that it's unhackable but that it takes time. Given enough time and resources, you can hack any encryption in existence. The problem is that it takes time and resources; you can't skip that step. Therefore they lose out their "mass data" strategy because they can't just aggregate tons of unsecured data; they'd have to dramatically cut down their data sources.
Encryption is literally a locked door. A locked door can be used for all sorts of things, from protecting your valuables to illegal activity. Any locked door, no matter how much armor you build into it, can be broken through eventually. The intelligence agencies want people to leave their doors unlocked and or at least give them the key so they can quickly stop at each location and glance inside to make sure there's nothing juicy in there.
People, on the other hand, are rightfully uncomfortable with this, which is why they kept their "peeking" a secret. Now everyone is locking their doors, and it's made the process much harder.
So apparently their solution is "well, if you're going to lock all your doors, we may end up smashing yours down."