This may make you want to cry, or commit some heinous act like genocide, but I've actually met a few designers who insist on ridiculouly short pages and their reasoning has nothing to do with ad spamming. The reason was this: the boss didn't know how to scroll down.
Well, I just have to assume that greed and/or stupidity are always involved in such decisions somehow:)
Wtf.. she called it a negative.. I like a long page length.. seriously who the heck wants to click through multiple pages??
People who advocate short page lengths probably don't use the web for information.
Gotta agree with that. People who want multiple pages are usually trying to pump ad views. This chick just seems to want to make things pretty, or her version of pretty anyway. I guess if you can spout BS well enough to sound knowledgeable, people will throw money at you. Serves no useful purpose to anyone else, but must be nice.
Unfortunately, there are enough weak brained person's around to get the guy for "intent" based on production of the code.
I think the fact that he's telling everyone about it pretty much nullifies that argument. You don't broadcast to everyone that you can create fake tickets if you actually intend to use them.
And are you trying to suggest that we're not ruled by the rich?
I think you're right that they won't want to enact/enforce any law that would make their kids into criminals, but I don't think he was implying that we aren't ruled by the rich. Probably quite the opposite. The way I took it, he was saying that money thrown their way speaks much much louder than their kids. I think both play a part. Not sure which would win in this case really.
Must have forgot to end the sarcasm (and bad math) tags after my first paragraph. I figured it was implied, but I see that you needed the joke explained. See, I know that there will be more than the initial shipments will be followed by more shipments. And if the PS3 sells like PS2's they will likely have to make even more than 200 million seeing as you don't need an adaptor for more than two controllers. The funny part was when I pretended I didn't know that. Don't worry, you'll understand humor one of these days if you just try to lighten up.
More people might get the joke if it were actually funny. Then you probably won't even need the sarcasm tags.
The rules were set up as a bargain between society and the publishers, and what's happening here is that they are unilaterally altering the agreement.
False. The rules you're talking about (freely-copyable content) belonged to a different era. They aren't saying they're going to come to your house and rip your old (un'DRMed) Beatles out of your closet. They're saying here are the rules on the new content -- you can buy it if you want or don't.
The original laws existed for a reason. If that reason is no longer valid, then we should definitely be rethinking the whole thing. I don't really care to have laws written just so that a few huge corporations can try to squeeze every last dime out of a particular work. If they don't want to play fair anymore, then I don't see why we, as a society, should be granting them these rights in the first place. I think many people are coming to the same conclusion. Now it's just a matter of education. If more people understood how copyright came to be, and how it's been changed over the years, they'd be rightly pissed off as well. Yeah yeah, they'll whine about the economic collapse of the world and such, but there's really no reason we can't go back to having a rational and sane copyright policy. Just don't allow the media corps to be the only ones at the policy-making table like they have been for as long as anyone can remember.
And finally, NBC decides to yank dramas and comedies from the 8pm time slot because they're "too expensive" compared to reality shows. Never mind that NBC rode the top of the rating charts for years on the backs of shows like Seinfeld and Friends (and, later in the evening, ER and Law & Order).
See, the great thing about reality shows from the perspective of NBC is not just that they're cheap. It's that they're cheap and they stay that way. The "actors" aren't going to demand more money next season if it becomes a hit, because they'll be gone. So if a reality show becomes a hit, they don't have to share with anyone!
MGM plans to release new SG-1 content direct to DVD, and they may end up producing a full Season 11 for iTunes and DVD. NBC Universal won't see a dime from those projects.
While I'm not averse to making use of bittorrent if I happen to miss an episode of a show I like, that doesn't mean I won't shell out for an online only show. Price them reasonably, and I would be first in line to hand over my cash. I will do so just for the inkling of hope that it takes off in a huge way and network execs start jumping out of 30th floor windows.
That's right, you've been planned for in advance, so mod me down as only your ignorant minds can. You are planned and accounted for, cowards, since you can mod yet you don't have the balls to do anything.
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure you're frustrated and all, but you're just ranting now. Balls have nothing to do with it. It's all about money. I wouldn't want to blow my kids' college fund fighting a lawsuit against an opponent with a bottomless pit of money. So no, balls aren't the issue. It's common sense. Yes, the RIAA uses that to its advantage. No, there's not much we can do about it short of lobbying our congresscritters, which I have done on numerous occaisions. Mine don't want to hear it. They get campaign money from the recording industry. So, I don't vote for them. I tell others why I don't vote for them. I can't really afford to do much else. Out of curiosity, what are you doing? Or did you just come here to berate people?
I think if you sat a developer down with a pile of game books, and another developer down with a pile of classic literature or something, the latter would ultimately produce the more unique experience because he would be exposed to new ideas outside of the realm of interactive media.
Nah. He'd probably just produce a game called "Moby Dick Extreeeme Whale Hunting" which would play much like the old Jaws game on Nintendo.
Sure, the USA is a far larger country, but even at a State level you don't really see the same kind of news reporting when it comes to these kind of shootings.
But then again, we have states that are larger than Britain.
unless you're talking about the waaaaay-old changes to iTunes that disabled the ability to do music sharing via IP (as opposed to only on your local subnet, the way it is now), which had nothing to do with DRM, or the syncing changes in iTunes 2.0, which again had nothing to with with DRM, or disallowing music from easily being downloaded by others (as opposed to streamed) via iTunes, which, again, had nothing to do with DRM.
All of those changes and restrictions are made possible only because of DRM. So it does actually have everything to do with DRM. Then there's the point that, regardless of what Apple has done so far, it is entirely possible and legal for them to add restrictions at any time on media that you have already purchased. So the GP post was correct that while you may know what the restrictions are now, you have no way of knowing what they'll be tomorrow.
I've had enough with the "I'm being manipulaaaaaated!!11" excuse. Grow a fucking spine and admit that you do what *you* want to do.
The problem lies in the complexity of the issues that are being faced by policymakers. The reason we have a representative government is because nobody has enough time to get fully educated on all of the issues out there. So we have to designate someone who will make it their job to become educated on the issues, and then make the decision that serves their constituency the best. The problem is that we've allowed special interest lobbyists to become the only constituencies that really matter. Until such time as we take away the ability of our representatives to accept cash, gifts, or favors from anyone, we will not be honestly represented in our government. This isn't the marketplace folks. It shouldn't be a laissez-faire system. Money shouldn't be an issue. Right now it's extremely difficult to separate legal cash and gifts from illegal ones. Sure, sometimes people get caught, but it's very rare, and even when they do, it takes a massive and extremely expensive effort to get enough evidence to get a conviction. Make all gifts illegal, and it will become just very hard, rather than almost impossible, to ensure that our politicians are not being bought.
The problem now is how to get the people running the system to make effective changes to it. That will require more concerted effort than the public could ever muster, I believe. It will require the sort of universal outrage that I'm not sure we're capable of anymore. With everything so polarized, we can't get more than half the public to back much of anything really. Each side points the finger at the other, and everything continues as usual. Only those in power benefit from this system.
When a similarly high-ranking Islamic cleric himself denounces all people of other faiths as apostates deserving of death, do mosques burn?
Not necessarily mosques, but we've been busily bombing or disappearing any self-proclaimed "muslim" that we can find who is spouting off like that, along with anyone who happens to be nearby at the time. So no, I don't think they're exactly getting off easy.
And lets not forget policemen are also useful for stopping muggings, assaults and burglaries
How often have you heard of a policeman stopping any of those things? If there are police around, then the muggers/burglars simply go elsewhere to commit their crimes. Police almost never catch them in the act.
Dumbed down? Farcry Instincts was arguably a BETTER game than the PC version. Sure, lower resolution, and the controls obviously weren't as good as keyboard/mouse, but it wasn't a "dumbed down" game.
Instincts was more linear than the original, and the A.I. was quite a bit worse as well. To me, that's dumbed down.
really? i would love to see the section of copyright law that enshrines this allowable use.
(note that i agree with that it should, but currently it doesn't)
Let me quote the U.S. Code here (emphasis mine)...
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
It then goes on to list criteria on which decisions should be made. So yes, education is a protected use.
And how sad for a society that requires entertainment in order to provide education. If we can't teach without flashy shiny media clips then something is wrong, and it isn't DRM.
Ever hear the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words?" Just because you learned by burying your nose in a book, doesn't make it the best way to learn. You provide no evidence or reasoning to back up your "argument".
The whole fair use side of this debate is little more than quibbling. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the people who are so passionately demanding their "fair use" exemptions are not teachers trying to educate the future business leaders of America...
So, once again, you're ignoring the problems by pointing out areas that aren't problems. Teaching is a huge area, and yes, DRM causes problems for teachers by making it impossible for them to legally exercise their fair use rights. Pointing to places where it isn't causing legitimate problems doesn't change that, and is frankly a pretty retarded argument.
We're quick to take issue when, during a poltical campaign, some photograph of Kerry giving a speech years ago is doctored. I think there is some precedent there. Doesn't it apply equally to what Frankel is doing?
There's a difference between doctoring something and asserting that it's a true image, and doctoring something as parody. As long as the site is using the images as parody, he should be in the clear. Hell, TV shows do it all the time for purposes of parody.
I know a friend of mine got burned when buying his rig about 2 years ago, PCI-e had just come out, and he didn't expect it to kill AGP in a matter of days. So, I'd say that was a bad time to buy a midrange system. (PCI-e was at the expensive end at the time)
Yep, I'm currently living that. I got stuck with no real upgrade path that didn't involve ripping out pretty much everything in order to upgrade my cpu and vid card. So now, on top of the cpu and vid card, I also have to buy a new motherboard, RAM, and possibly power supply. PCI-e just didn't seem like it was worth the extra wait and investment at the time, but it sure took off quick. I was planning to buy already, but decided to wait for the Core 2 Duo chips to be released. Now I'm waiting for the nForce 590 motherboards to hit the streets so I can get one of those, hoping it will have fewer problems with the new chips than the current crop of boards.
Oh well. The cat's out of the bag. Another peaceful attempt at security blown to smitherines.
If they'd just done it by the rules, it would have remained both confidential and legal. The problem is that this Administration thinks it can make its own laws. You want to blame someone, blame them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I just have to assume that greed and/or stupidity are always involved in such decisions somehow
Holy crap. That site is hard on the eyes. People pay her to do stuff like that?!
Gotta agree with that. People who want multiple pages are usually trying to pump ad views. This chick just seems to want to make things pretty, or her version of pretty anyway. I guess if you can spout BS well enough to sound knowledgeable, people will throw money at you. Serves no useful purpose to anyone else, but must be nice.
I think the fact that he's telling everyone about it pretty much nullifies that argument. You don't broadcast to everyone that you can create fake tickets if you actually intend to use them.
Umm.. maybe in some places, but there are parking fees in lots of places that have little or no public transportation.
I think you're right that they won't want to enact/enforce any law that would make their kids into criminals, but I don't think he was implying that we aren't ruled by the rich. Probably quite the opposite. The way I took it, he was saying that money thrown their way speaks much much louder than their kids. I think both play a part. Not sure which would win in this case really.
More people might get the joke if it were actually funny. Then you probably won't even need the sarcasm tags.
The original laws existed for a reason. If that reason is no longer valid, then we should definitely be rethinking the whole thing. I don't really care to have laws written just so that a few huge corporations can try to squeeze every last dime out of a particular work. If they don't want to play fair anymore, then I don't see why we, as a society, should be granting them these rights in the first place. I think many people are coming to the same conclusion. Now it's just a matter of education. If more people understood how copyright came to be, and how it's been changed over the years, they'd be rightly pissed off as well. Yeah yeah, they'll whine about the economic collapse of the world and such, but there's really no reason we can't go back to having a rational and sane copyright policy. Just don't allow the media corps to be the only ones at the policy-making table like they have been for as long as anyone can remember.
See, the great thing about reality shows from the perspective of NBC is not just that they're cheap. It's that they're cheap and they stay that way. The "actors" aren't going to demand more money next season if it becomes a hit, because they'll be gone. So if a reality show becomes a hit, they don't have to share with anyone!
While I'm not averse to making use of bittorrent if I happen to miss an episode of a show I like, that doesn't mean I won't shell out for an online only show. Price them reasonably, and I would be first in line to hand over my cash. I will do so just for the inkling of hope that it takes off in a huge way and network execs start jumping out of 30th floor windows.
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure you're frustrated and all, but you're just ranting now. Balls have nothing to do with it. It's all about money. I wouldn't want to blow my kids' college fund fighting a lawsuit against an opponent with a bottomless pit of money. So no, balls aren't the issue. It's common sense. Yes, the RIAA uses that to its advantage. No, there's not much we can do about it short of lobbying our congresscritters, which I have done on numerous occaisions. Mine don't want to hear it. They get campaign money from the recording industry. So, I don't vote for them. I tell others why I don't vote for them. I can't really afford to do much else. Out of curiosity, what are you doing? Or did you just come here to berate people?
yeah... or writes a large check... if he's got the cash, he can get in just about anywhere...
Nah. He'd probably just produce a game called "Moby Dick Extreeeme Whale Hunting" which would play much like the old Jaws game on Nintendo.
But then again, we have states that are larger than Britain.
All of those changes and restrictions are made possible only because of DRM. So it does actually have everything to do with DRM. Then there's the point that, regardless of what Apple has done so far, it is entirely possible and legal for them to add restrictions at any time on media that you have already purchased. So the GP post was correct that while you may know what the restrictions are now, you have no way of knowing what they'll be tomorrow.
The problem lies in the complexity of the issues that are being faced by policymakers. The reason we have a representative government is because nobody has enough time to get fully educated on all of the issues out there. So we have to designate someone who will make it their job to become educated on the issues, and then make the decision that serves their constituency the best. The problem is that we've allowed special interest lobbyists to become the only constituencies that really matter. Until such time as we take away the ability of our representatives to accept cash, gifts, or favors from anyone, we will not be honestly represented in our government. This isn't the marketplace folks. It shouldn't be a laissez-faire system. Money shouldn't be an issue. Right now it's extremely difficult to separate legal cash and gifts from illegal ones. Sure, sometimes people get caught, but it's very rare, and even when they do, it takes a massive and extremely expensive effort to get enough evidence to get a conviction. Make all gifts illegal, and it will become just very hard, rather than almost impossible, to ensure that our politicians are not being bought.
The problem now is how to get the people running the system to make effective changes to it. That will require more concerted effort than the public could ever muster, I believe. It will require the sort of universal outrage that I'm not sure we're capable of anymore. With everything so polarized, we can't get more than half the public to back much of anything really. Each side points the finger at the other, and everything continues as usual. Only those in power benefit from this system.
Not necessarily mosques, but we've been busily bombing or disappearing any self-proclaimed "muslim" that we can find who is spouting off like that, along with anyone who happens to be nearby at the time. So no, I don't think they're exactly getting off easy.
How often have you heard of a policeman stopping any of those things? If there are police around, then the muggers/burglars simply go elsewhere to commit their crimes. Police almost never catch them in the act.
Instincts was more linear than the original, and the A.I. was quite a bit worse as well. To me, that's dumbed down.
They'll probably come up with a lower graphical quality, simplified, and dumbed down version for consoles later, just like last time.
Let me quote the U.S. Code here (emphasis mine)...
It then goes on to list criteria on which decisions should be made. So yes, education is a protected use.
Ever hear the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words?" Just because you learned by burying your nose in a book, doesn't make it the best way to learn. You provide no evidence or reasoning to back up your "argument".
So, once again, you're ignoring the problems by pointing out areas that aren't problems. Teaching is a huge area, and yes, DRM causes problems for teachers by making it impossible for them to legally exercise their fair use rights. Pointing to places where it isn't causing legitimate problems doesn't change that, and is frankly a pretty retarded argument.
There's a difference between doctoring something and asserting that it's a true image, and doctoring something as parody. As long as the site is using the images as parody, he should be in the clear. Hell, TV shows do it all the time for purposes of parody.
Yep, I'm currently living that. I got stuck with no real upgrade path that didn't involve ripping out pretty much everything in order to upgrade my cpu and vid card. So now, on top of the cpu and vid card, I also have to buy a new motherboard, RAM, and possibly power supply. PCI-e just didn't seem like it was worth the extra wait and investment at the time, but it sure took off quick. I was planning to buy already, but decided to wait for the Core 2 Duo chips to be released. Now I'm waiting for the nForce 590 motherboards to hit the streets so I can get one of those, hoping it will have fewer problems with the new chips than the current crop of boards.
If they'd just done it by the rules, it would have remained both confidential and legal. The problem is that this Administration thinks it can make its own laws. You want to blame someone, blame them.