Euro PSP to Ship With Anti-MAME Upgrade Pre-installed

Well bugger my badger! It's just taken me half an hour to get on top of this thread, even then I had to skip through some of the elngthier threads from Way and Tyrion.

Bit of an anticlimax, I thought. Was expecting blood. Pistols at dawn, etc, etc.

I agree, that's likely.

Tiger is probably onto the right thing here. If you followed the IP debates over the last 20 years you would be informed. You will see this trend, patent for x years is not enough, we want 20 years, copyright for 50 years (I think this was one that came up) is not enough. Being able to sell under copyright law is not enough, we want region encoding protected by law, so we can innocently jack up the prices in different markets. We want to reduce competition, so reverse engineering should be illegal, including that of console play systems. We want to control what goes onto the stuff we sold the mug console buyer, so we can get more money from him, and set pricing and manufacture, therefore any attempt to produce games without a license should be illegal. This is the "informed" thing that the media and games industry has been upto. This is the sort of stuff I've seen and have been talking about. The informed reality world view is they are after more Money, and mugs will let them.

Yes, why let people play cheap software they get no cut off of, instead of buying the latest expensive $50+ game. You reckon a number of console companies want you to do anything with your hardware that you don't pay them to do? MS has even announced they are chipping the controller ports?

Skippable, deep meaningful stuff starts here:

Companies have only the rights to what we give them under law, if you sit back and say that's life they can do what they want, they get more their way, and more money. If you say this is not fair and get people and the law makers to agree, they will be limited. How come you think we have fair use provisions in laws (that don't go far enough). You want bombast, well what about this, it is the same as selling your self into a form of slavery, who's silly enough to put there hands up and say it's OK ;) . You either think of yourself, and act, as master, equal (even if servant) or slave, and you will get what you ask for. Companies aren't even real people, why should they be the public's master rather than the other way about?

The democratic government responsibility is supposed to regulate them for the public interest, not regulate us for their's. It is their business to go and catch pirates, our business not to pirate, if they are too cheap to go out there and catch them directly, that's their fault. The truth is that it is cheaper for them to change the law, and to limit the fair use of peoples' belongings, then for them to do the practical leg work. The laws are supposed to be their to morally enable the industry to best serve the publics interest, not for the public to best serve the people interest. People have to decide, do they vote, does the government exist for them, do they even permit it to exist for their benefit by going along with them, or do the companies do that. Slave/master mentality again, let them be your master and you shall be the slave.

If you start with the notion that these companies should not be able to take advantage of over people, then you might get fair laws.

Now hows that for bombast ;) ?

You missed all the best bits then. :)


Sorry, didn't happen, even though Tyrion and precious had a nice try ;)

Way, for the last few days you've been blatantly trying to get me to respond to you, so now here I am.

Your treatise on the evils of corporations is quite correct. Surprisingly, maybe, we agree on almost all of the points you raise about corporations, law, IP, copyright and the way the people mindlessly eat up the crap that's fed to them.

Where we seem to differ in opinion is in the area of rectification. First let's look at the problem.

What is missing from corporations at the moment is a moral compass. They have no higher calling than the almighty Dollar, Pound, Yen, Euro or whatever. This is good, to quote Gordon Gecko, "Greed is good" in a company. Greed pays the bills, greed pays the workers, greed keeps the company alive.

The problem is when you get to a large multi-national company. No moral compass means they have asked for and got a "global marketplace" whereby they can bank where they like, they can outsource menial work where they like and they can keep their executives in a state of luxury that surpasses that of the Roman Emperors or Egyptian Pharoes.

No moral compass means they can move into a new market or a new area and take over - the Wal-Mart effect of killing small local businesses. The attitude of crush all enemies that has so obviously been displayed by Microsoft in its actions in the software industry.

Now here comes the issue. The same freedoms that mean large corporations can act like they do also allow small businesses to compete with each other and stay afloat.

If a new grocery shop opens up opposite you, you can engage in price undercutting to keep your customers until a balance is reached. Big business uses this freedom to drive out competition entirely.

If you invent something, you can get a patent on it to protect you from people stealing your idea before you have had a chance to benefit from it. Big businesses hoard patents to use as weapons, preventing anybody else from competing in their marketplaces without licensing patents from them.

If a small business is unhappy with bank charges, the owners can move the business account to a new bank with lower charges to save money. Big business uses this freedom to move their corporation to the Bahamas and pay no taxes to the country they actually operate in.

Where Way and I disagree, in my opinion, is in how to combat this. My reading of Way's posts is that he would like to see the freedoms above removed by laws that govern the conduct of businesses. If I've misread you here Way, we might have saved a few electrons several posts back. My objection to this is that it would hurt the little companies much more than the large ones.

The only way to prevent the problems we are seeing from big business is by re-installing the moral compass. The only way I see to do this is by hitting them where it hurts - in their profits. If you don't agree with a company's way of working, don't buy their products.

Don't buy from fast food outlets, they have exceptionally poor health records, they drive farmers out of business by demanding cheaper and cheaper prices and they hire and fire based on profits, not service.

Don't buy from clothing firms that use Asian sweat-shops to manufacture their goods.

Don't buy CDs from companies that rip off their artists and force them into s**tty contracts to wring as much money out of them as possible.

In fact, don't buy from any company that has pursued tactics you disagree with. Until they change their tactics and realise that acting responsibly gets them sales. Then buy from the responsible ones.

The level of where a company becomes responsible is down to you to determine. However, don't complain about the evils of corporations you buy from.

Don't just sit there complaining about how evil corporations are and still buy their products. Don't wait for politicians to pass laws preventing the behaviour. Don't wait for everybody else to do the work for you.

Stop buying their products.

Full Stop.

That would depend entirely on how (and how well) these laws were drafted.

You see, there are very many things that a large company can do that a small company can not do. Your moving bank example for instance, is not a real example. Incorporating a shell company operating out of Bermuda is NOT the same as switching from HSBC to Lloyds, and it is NOT ruled by the same laws. It would be entirely possible to legislate against one without doing so against the other. It would be possible to draft laws controlling corporate excess if it were not for the fact that our lawmakers are the shareholders of these corporations. They have NO INTEREST whatsoever in such governance.



The problem here is in ascribing the lack of a moral compass to corporations exclusively, and overestimating the masses. Most people would rather save a buck fifty than overturn corporate corruption. You see it every day, people who would never personally murder a baby, nor kill a colombian unionist will gladly pay corporations to do it on their behalf.

Asking the proletariat to behave in a way that is morally unimpeachable goes against decades of marketing indoctrination that teaches them that the only important thing is to have a bigger f**king TV than their next door neighbour. A better SUV then their brother-in-law. A more expensive holiday than their work colleagues. And to get those things, they have to shop smartly, buy cheaply.



Thing is, there isn't often (ever?) a choice between an evil company and a moral one. So you are asking people to make sacrifices. That's tantamount to modern heresy. Some old folks didn't die fighting the communists on the Western Front so that we would have to MAKE SACRIFICES. Our hard earned freedom and democracy bestow upon us a god-f**king-given right to acquire. Our technological innovation gives us the ability to do it 24 hours a day, and our credit cards give us the ability to do it whether we cann afford to or not. But the only way we're ever gonna pay of that credit card bill is if our investments keep going up in value. So don't rock the bull.



Thing is, it's cheaper to hide your rotten corporate practices, to outsource your sweat-shops and to market over your abysmal environmental policies than it is to change them.



Even when you have no choice?

This is true, and yes my bank example was a little strained, but I was always told to make three points and I couldn't think of a better one offhand.

The problem of who drafts the law is the problem here, even if there were no politicians with seats on the board, there are still lobbyists.

Politicians listen to lobbyists since they can't talk to all of their constituents. Because of this, companies "sponsor" lobbyists to get their point across. Because of this, the companies with the most money get their points across more often. And because of this, the governments are still beholden to the corporations.

If any laws were passed to prevent any corporate shenanigans, there would be loopholes and except clauses all over it that would allow big businesses to escape, but not little ones. Hence little companies would be affected more than big corporations.


Again, very true, it's public apathy that is allowing this situation to exist in the first place. We seem to have become so disillusioned with our political representatives, we don't bother watching what they are doing. We have been so conditioned into a possession-led state of being that we can't imagine not being able to buy that chocolate bar or can of pop.


Rod, we agree so closely it's scary. People, and I include myself here, won't go without anything they have become accustomed to without very compelling evidence that it's not good for them. Define "good" how you will.


Which is why we need people to keep an eye on things. We need a general-purpose version of the Fair Trade association. Not to monitor if a fair price is being paid for raw materials and labour, but to monitor all the business practices of companies and give them a "does no harm" rating. In the age of the Internet, this information could be very easily given out.

The problem is that those Columbian hit-squads may just get given air tickets to the home country of such an organisation.


If you have no choice but to buy from an "evil" corporation, then sure you should complain. The problem comes from whiners who won't look for alternatives and still grumble about how bad the world is. Those with the "but wadda ya gonna do" attitude.

Rod: How would you define an evil company? And how would you define a moral one?

No I haven't, how can you seriously believe that, I even gave up trying to get precious's attention days ago ;) I've just been poking fun at the pokers.


Deep and Personal Bombast section:
Greed is inefficient, or capitalism is the most inefficient form of business, to quote another expert (who's name bypasses me). Examining the situation I had to agree with this counter intuitive argument. What is not realised is that everything costs as much as it does and the price is recouped somewhere. So when you get a below cost discount it is recouped somewhere else, even if it's from somebody going broke, the money they put in is the price. This inefficient competition (significant percentage) has to be built into the costs of doing business and in the end we pay it (the days of greed is good as a trendy slogan have faded). So the irony is that greed sends many broke too. But greed does an inefficient job of supplying the consumers need that capitalism is supposed to, because it is aimed at supplying the greed at the maximum expense the consumer can spare, and to the minimum extent to the business. Greed also is at the expense of needs of workers and the community, including values that aren't even tied to money. So yes greed is very inefficient, and as long as they are making it, they can justify it, as long as they can cause more money to be earned by throwing the expense on some other non-monetary value somewhere else, and the list goes on. So yes I agree with capitalism, but regulated capitalism, upto a point, to give the maximum benefit to society. Regulation for the good and benefit of the community. You will notice that business is pushing for things to be the other way around, to reduce it's regulation, and increase regulation on the community. This debate on regulation goes back. At the end of the second world war, the German Economists want regulated business, the American unregulated (I think it was American and not British). Germany made itself one of the biggest economic powers again through regulation and precise hard work. So there is no proof that it can't work, just fashionable statements from it's greed representing opponents, who are slowly ripping the guts out of society and security of people in society. We are fooled by greed, the company says we want to make more money from people, even if most of it disappears in inefficient costs, or more power to make money, the developers say ooh this can make me more money, the pirate says I want more games, or profit, nobody really wants to say, that's enough. People don't want to stand back and morally judge how much is a good piece of pie for each, they want it slanted in their direction, even entirely.

Sorry if this is a bit clumsy today, feel bad and off colour.


So big business opens up a grocery shop opposite you, undercuts your costs, even at a loss, if that's what's required, sends you and other competition broke, then raises prices to recoup from the community it's losses and make more profit. It may even raise prices to a level higher than before they came, or/and lower quality, only discounting to stop new competition from surviving. These companies have a tendency to go up market over time, and increase there profit margin. So how do new businesses get established to learn to compete with the big companies, well diversification etc, hard as it may turn out, because the increasing trend is new competitors to these corporations coming from other businesses willing to pout up $100M to $1 Billion dollars to establish themselves. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Sucks lemons doesn't it? In the US there is anti-trust laws to stop businesses from monopolising the market, but not in all countries, and in the US they don't seem to well enforced. Reminds me of films where the whole world is run by corporations, instead of running for government, you can run a corporation, unfortunately we are seeing the beginning of that now.

But what sort of society do you want, one where you have to line up for fish and chips at the nationwide supermarket counter that fries their food in the cheapest, blandest oil, that is suspected of causing stomach cancer (I'm not joking about that part). Every town you go to only two choices: McDonald's, or the super market, no real variety. You'd be wishing for the time when you had a choice like your parents did, and you had as a kid. I don't think the French and Italians are wrong in opposing this.


Yes.


Yes that is by making the executive, board and share holders of these companies responsible criminally and civilly, for anything they directly vote for, command, or allow (not something that they didn't directly vote for etc). A sort of anti-cartel method against group actions that are against the public interest or good. This is the same standard any private citizen or owner of a private business comes under. One other problem (I don't know about in America) is that you are only allowed one bite of the cherry in legal actions. As an example of what I mean, you can only sue the company or it's executives. When somebody sues them, they have the choice of suing the employee responsible who they will only be able to get so much from, or the company which they can bag, so the tendency is too sue the company. So the executives are free to make bad decisions (except they might get fired or sued by the company that they have dirt on) and let the company pick up the legal bill, probably after they are gone. So, to stop people making bad decisions, proper, independently kept, history of challengable records need to be made for evidence, people need to be able to sue everybody involved, and blame apportioned (that is why the said records are kept to help) sequentially or in one court judgement. Now everybody who is responsible, is, so it is upto them to say to the board, or shareholders, "I'm not going to do this to please you, it's actionable" or "illegal", so the blame falls back on those who make the decisions, or force them. I will even go this far, if it was clearly a employees personal decision at fault outside the companies requirements, direction, will and so forth, then in all fairness the company should not be held responsible. If I am inaccurate in this or if the law has changed since my studies, my apologies.


I buy official recordings, usually from good artists, earning their money, at discount. No use in supporting unrealistically high income of executives or artists, in order to make myself poor. Which is another thing, if you want lower prices don't pay high prices, but unfortunately many will. So restricting our choice doesn't really work, I have been doing it for years, but most people won't keep it up, or do it, and will even spend extra money to make themselves feel important. The truth is that society is so unwell, because companies have conjulled and bullied their way into it, and given them poor nutrition and chemical reduced health, through lack of regulation, that they need somebody to regulate for them. I hear this don't buy, don't regulate argument over time but it fails the human condition. It's like those conspiracy theories that you hear, this is a good one: "The Nazi's found that putting Fluoride in the water supply would dull the mind and subjugate the community" (or make them passive) sort of argument about the "real reason" why they are putting fluoride in the water supply. Who knows maybe it's exactly right about the effects of fluoride, but what people don't realise is that a lot of chemicals, oils and fast food nutrition can do the same thing, that is being fed to us by big business. People minds are effected by greed, ego, self interest, and generally quiet dull. I find people that eat healthy tend to have quiet a different view (though vegetarians seem to get stuck in dullish like thinking too, missing things). This doesn't even get into the known practice of making your fast food more additive, another cost, health traded in for money in their pockets.

One marketing ploy is to slowly condition people over time to new products and market behaviour, so it can be enhanced in favour of the business, or worse ones introduced. People with dulled minds just struggling to get by don't stand a good chance, even just to get good health so they can think straight.


Now, Now Tyrion, don't get bombastic ;) we can only do so much before we start living like hermits. Sufficient regulation can make us live like people, and keep arrogant executives hiding in their offices working, lot less hassle too. In the end the market is so deregulated and demoralised, all you can do is buy from the lesser of evils unless it is too much of an impedance. I would like a games machine that doesn't cost as much as a PC, isn't as hard to maintain as Windows, or as unreliable, I can always buy the best games on discount, secondhand games, and demo's from magazines. You can find lots of faults with most businesses and people, but you don't cut yourself off from the world because of it. You lay down the rules and say this is what it's like, so they know what to do, and let the law handle it. If they step out of line you report them, or don't buy. I support a practical minimal regulation, not maximum regulation. Problem is we have wrong regulation that acts as a hindrance to small business (some cases deliberately so only the big players can get in the market) and the community. It's all about not being taken advantage of, and to do that I think one of their primary methods is favourable legislation, or lack of unfavourable legislation, without it they can do as they please within reason, people will eventually accept it "as it is.." and business can get away with it and more.

The free market means the most power wins, not necessarily the best, so the only free market avenue left to us is to gang up on them and regulate before they regulate us, maybe not so free, but realistic and much more healthy. You talk about me advocating regulation against small business, I talk about regulating for the community and small business, against big business. See the difference.


You got it all wrong, my place is pretty low key, you have to get the politicians to do the job, and get over people involved. I got my own things going ;) , and I am here to point out the obvious so people might think about it, what are you doing?

Once again my apologies for any spelling, grammar, and the length, not really up to it today.

Thing is, that I have only just read these messages after replying to the previous one, and it's even more scary how we all agree together ;) Except of the legislation thing. Like the office of fair trading scheme, that would be a good start.

Here's some news, Sony is supporting a universal game developement format (like the MS XNA Windows developement system) that canbe used for portables including the PSP:

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050829_130844.html

Future game phones might be a viable alternative. Have a look at this, not a game phone, but you get the idea of what might be done:

http://www.brighthand.com/article/Motorola_Q_Unveiled

Intel has just announced a 1.25 Ghz version of their Arm xscale (although they announced something like a 1.2Ghz version of the xscale when they released it years ago) and they say it has plenty of head room. I think Samsung announced a much faster ARM a few years ago. So look at it this way 1Ghz+ dual, or quad, cored ARMS, even 64 bit with all the extra DSP, FP features, might be a viable option shortly for portable gaming devices (with phones on a much slower speed). Add some enhanced 3D (remember the quote from Nvidia about Xbox in a handheld). I think Sony may have made a mistake with going Mips instead of ARM. The objective top end of a modern ARM should be 4Ghz+ per core (would have solved Apples problems a lot as well). At the thermodynamics of a modern P4 maybe even 8Ghz+ (a guess) remember that the ARM used to be the top performing processor in the world long time before it went portable.

That's the Collada stuff, right? Sony announced it ages ago, yet nobody seem to have taken any significant notice. All the anti-Sony camp flap about how difficult it will be to develop for PS3, yet they haven't uttered a single grunt about the Collada stuff, the SN Systems acquisition or the Havoc/Epic/Ageia SDK deals.

Overall, I'm really quite impressed with Sony's approach to the SDK. The Collada stuff is an XML-based open platform, it's opting for OpenGL for graphics, acquired middleware developer SN Systems and has licensed a bunch of physics middleware AND an alternate middleware platform (Epic's)

I feel that Sony is 100% commited to not fscking up like it did with the PS2 dev platform.


Until phone manufacturer can sort out the primary bottleneck in phone gameplay, namely the "controller", I'm don't give my time to all these mobile graphical enhancements.

That made me laugh, that's what I meant. Sure the GC has better controls than a normal phone, but I would have been more happy if it was the size of a gameboy micro with the screen used the right away around (and descent resolution and speed). I wish somebody would make cheap externally attachable controls.

You wouldn't think they could stuff it up so much, would you? With Java they have the basis of GBA Micro like game phone, data phone (PDA with QWERTY keyboard) and portable computer. What are they waiting for they could be making money for years on these things. I mean, if they sold a small QWERTY smart phone for $200-$300 they might get increase sales by upto 100 fold over selling it for $800-$1000.

Not that Sony won't crush this thing like the bug it is soon, but there has been a hack to run "Hello World" on the PSP 2.0 firmware mentioned in the www.gizmodo.com blog:

http://pspupdates.qj.net/2005/09/hello-20-world.html