Both, in effect, "killed people" except that the guy who "gouged" in price may have enough cash to pay for more goods from the inflated upstream providers and may have a chance of getting a re-supply and thus, possibly extend life further.
No. One of them sold the bread for a fair price and left people with some money that they will no-doubt need in order to buy water and other necessities. The other jacked up the price so that while people still got the bread, it won't matter if he can re-supply or not because nobody can afford to buy more. I guess in your scenario, the wealthy have the highest moral claim to life.
Not really necessary. There's a $40 Microsoft VGA adapter that will let you use a monitor. Since the computer would have to include a monitor anyway, the cost differential between the physical displays is $40.
And how many people actually drag their monitor into the living room to play their xbox? That's garbage and you know it. I could make similarly silly claims about how you could save on PC costs, but we'll both know it's garbage.
I argue you don't. It's assumed you already have a TV (which by itself can't run games), the same way it is assumed you already have a 3-5 years old PC (that won't run the new games).
By your argument, the old non-hd tv you had 3-5 years ago would be just fine too (hell, it's what i'm still using). But 360 games will still look like crap on it. So if you're gonna compare your 360 setup to a pretty good gaming pc setup, then you have to compare apples to apples. I buy a better vid card so that the games look good. Same reason people buy hdtv for their 360. Yes, you use the tv for other stuff too, but I use my PC for other stuff. Some things are fairly demanding on a system, such as video editing, ripping and encoding, 3d modeling, and running several apps at a time when doing development work. Not all vid card related, but also requiring a decent processor and ram.
You stated, "images" and he changed it to "names". there's a HUGE issue.
What exactly is the issue? A trademark is a trademark.
How to books, however are not. If I want to publish a how-to on model railroading, that's fine too, as long as I discuss all types, even if I show images of all types including Lionel trains. If I want to publish a how-to only about Lionel toy trains, I had better at least contact Lionel first.
I'd like to see you give a source for that. You don't have to get anyone's permission to write a book about how to use their product. Just give a source that agrees with your position.
Well they aren't claiming trademark infringement in this case, so it's my guess that they don't feel they have a trademark case against him. They're claiming copyright infringement, but I doubt that will hold up in court. They tried to intimidate him and it seems to have backfired.
GUI apps have trademarked names and phrases all over the place. It says "Microsoft Word" right there on the titlebar near the Word document icon, and has "Microsoft Office Help" on the help sidebar. Pretty much every application book I've ever seen has the trademarked name of the app right there on the cover! Using a trademarked word or image is not a violation of the trademark if you are using it in a way that is not competing with the owner of the trademark's own product, and you are not deceiving customers as to who the trademark belongs to.
It's hardly any different than trying to sell a T-Shirt with a picture of Donkey Kong on it.
Actually, it's quite a bit different. Selling a t-shirt with a pic of Donkey Kong on it would compete directly with merchandise produced by Nintendo. Not only that, you are not using the image as a part of a larger work that you have produced on your own. You're counting on their trademark to sell the product on its own.
The difference between all these other publishers and this one guy is that all these publishers do one thing first: that is ask Blizzard's permission.
It may be true that others asked for permission (actually just one AFAIK, which is Prima, who has the rights to publish the "Official Guide"), but it's certainly not required. I don't have to get permission to write a book on how to use MS Excel, and have it published. That's not the point of copyright law. I can write the book, include screenshots and descriptions of how to use the interface, etc. It's fair use. It's not stealing anything from MS. It's simply describing how to use something effectively. He's doing the same with the WoW guide.
Not to defend blizzard here, but look at every other brand, you can't take them and start selling them as your own under any copyright law without the "used with permission" clause.
He's not selling anything that belongs to Blizzard. From what I've seen, he has properly attributed the material and trademarks that are used. There is no reasonable chance of anyone mistaking who owns the marks, and he's not trying to confuse anyone. He even notes on the first page that the guide is unauthorized.
Yes, lets all be outraged that any company would dare stand up for its IP rights. How dare they sue some poor 24 year old trying to exploit thier product for financial gain!
. . . Oh wait, they didn't. HE sued THEM. Guess what, this guy brought it on himself and is now trying to build sympathy for his unsubstantiated case.
You're trolling most likely, but lest someone not rtfa and spot this, there should be a rebuttal. He is only suing because Blizzard repeatedly forced Ebay to remove his listings for the guide. He's doing the same thing that countless authors do all the time. They write a how-to guide on some piece of software, complete with explanations and screenshots. He's not ripping off their work. He's creating something that is helpful to a lot of people, and making fair use of a very limited number of images from the game to do so. I don't see the other authors being harrassed, so I don't see why Blizzard should get away with harrassing this guy either.
I'm afraid Blizzard does actually have a legal basis here, mainly because screenshots are involved.
Screenshots are used in 95%+ of the how-to books on computing that are out there today. I don't see them getting hauled into court. I fail to see how this is different.
It's hard for me to sympathize with Microsoft. They do make some good products, but they bring these problems on themselves. The emails that were revealed during the last two anti-trust cases here in the U.S. illustrated perfectly that they knew that they were breaking the law, and they laughed about it, and came off as a generally arrogant and unruly company. It seems to be their culture. Then again, they always manage to get away with it too, so I guess it works for them. So I don't begrudge anyone getting a piece of them while they can. It's a lot less punishment than Microsoft actually deserves.
I'm thinking that until we come up with a good way to reinforce our skeletons, super muscles won't live up to their potential. It's no good having muscles that can pick up an SUV if you snap your bones in the process. The muscles have to anchor to something after all.
They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand.
Yet still a better offer than you get from regular copyright restrictions.
m I a prude, asexual, anti-sexual? No, not at all. But there is a reason I don't take a shit with the door open, and it applies here.
If you could find a market to broadcast that to, I'd say more power to you and just make sure I don't watch that channel (not that hard since I rarely watch live tv anyway). The bottom line is that people find sex to be entertaining, and enjoy many aspects of it. Everything from flirtation and innuendo to hardcore porn. It's a HUGE market. So obviously there are a HUGE number of people that enjoy it. The problem is the very vocal group, which judging by the viewing and sales numbers I suspect is a rather small minority, that will complain about sexual depictions on tv. I basically just think that the shows should be allowed to do as they wish and just warn people in advance. I really hope the FCC stays the hell away from cable too.
Tactical voting is all well and good, but it's a band-aid on a system that is broken by design. People shouldn't have to try to calculate who is more likely to win a certain race, and there shouldn't have to be coordination on a large scale like some of the examples given in that wiki. Having people simply rank their choices on the ballot would fix the whole problem quite easily. No one throws away their vote by voting their conscience, and it doesn't require the coordination or strange and error-prone calculations that tactical voting does. It's a much simpler system. So while I agree that tactical voting is a necessary temporary patch on the system, it's certainly doesn't make the system any better.
None of that matters. It doesn't take magic to become a president. Currently it mostly just takes an assload of cash and promises to the right people. Even someone like Wesley Clark would have been a decent choice for president probably. If he or someone else could run independently of the parties, and therefore not have to sell their souls in the primaries, they could get elected. That would require that we change the election system though so that we don't have the damn vote-splitting problems.
Guys, here's a sugestion for getting a serious third party. START AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Get people as a state and county/town/city legislator and judges.
While local level elections are easier to get a third party into, it still uses the same retarded election system. It still needs to be fixed. And we'd rather not wait 10-20 years to get a candidate into congress or the presidency.
What we need is for Perot and Nader to run at the same time. If we can keep symmetry in the left/right spectrum, then the "throwing away your vote" aregument carries much less weight.
That would be nice, but we shouldn't have to rely on that. We should just fix the system.
it is that the public is way too lazy to and ignorant to check into the viability of any other candidates. Until the extra parties can find a leader capable of pulling together a bunch of brain dead sheep, we will be stuck with two losers every few years.
People don't vote for third parties. The republicans will say "look what happened with Perot! You'll throw away your vote and the Democrats will win!". The Democrats will say "look what happened with Nader! You'll throw away your vote and the Republicans will win!". And so, that is why we need a sensible election system that let's people vote their conscience, and ranks the candidates so that nobody's vote is thrown away. Until we have that, there will always, and rightly so, be the fear of splitting the vote between the two most-favored candidates and thus causing the least-favored candidate to win. What a moronic system.
People see politics like sports these days. It's not about who's the right one for the job, or who's honest or not. It's all about rooting for your team and bashing the other team. That's all there is to it anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Both, in effect, "killed people" except that the guy who "gouged" in price may have enough cash to pay for more goods from the inflated upstream providers and may have a chance of getting a re-supply and thus, possibly extend life further.
No. One of them sold the bread for a fair price and left people with some money that they will no-doubt need in order to buy water and other necessities. The other jacked up the price so that while people still got the bread, it won't matter if he can re-supply or not because nobody can afford to buy more. I guess in your scenario, the wealthy have the highest moral claim to life.
Not really necessary. There's a $40 Microsoft VGA adapter that will let you use a monitor. Since the computer would have to include a monitor anyway, the cost differential between the physical displays is $40.
And how many people actually drag their monitor into the living room to play their xbox? That's garbage and you know it. I could make similarly silly claims about how you could save on PC costs, but we'll both know it's garbage.
I argue you don't. It's assumed you already have a TV (which by itself can't run games), the same way it is assumed you already have a 3-5 years old PC (that won't run the new games).
By your argument, the old non-hd tv you had 3-5 years ago would be just fine too (hell, it's what i'm still using). But 360 games will still look like crap on it. So if you're gonna compare your 360 setup to a pretty good gaming pc setup, then you have to compare apples to apples. I buy a better vid card so that the games look good. Same reason people buy hdtv for their 360. Yes, you use the tv for other stuff too, but I use my PC for other stuff. Some things are fairly demanding on a system, such as video editing, ripping and encoding, 3d modeling, and running several apps at a time when doing development work. Not all vid card related, but also requiring a decent processor and ram.
You stated, "images" and he changed it to "names". there's a HUGE issue.
What exactly is the issue? A trademark is a trademark.
How to books, however are not. If I want to publish a how-to on model railroading, that's fine too, as long as I discuss all types, even if I show images of all types including Lionel trains. If I want to publish a how-to only about Lionel toy trains, I had better at least contact Lionel first.
I'd like to see you give a source for that. You don't have to get anyone's permission to write a book about how to use their product. Just give a source that agrees with your position.
Well they aren't claiming trademark infringement in this case, so it's my guess that they don't feel they have a trademark case against him. They're claiming copyright infringement, but I doubt that will hold up in court. They tried to intimidate him and it seems to have backfired.
GUI apps have trademarked names and phrases all over the place. It says "Microsoft Word" right there on the titlebar near the Word document icon, and has "Microsoft Office Help" on the help sidebar. Pretty much every application book I've ever seen has the trademarked name of the app right there on the cover! Using a trademarked word or image is not a violation of the trademark if you are using it in a way that is not competing with the owner of the trademark's own product, and you are not deceiving customers as to who the trademark belongs to.
It's hardly any different than trying to sell a T-Shirt with a picture of Donkey Kong on it.
Actually, it's quite a bit different. Selling a t-shirt with a pic of Donkey Kong on it would compete directly with merchandise produced by Nintendo. Not only that, you are not using the image as a part of a larger work that you have produced on your own. You're counting on their trademark to sell the product on its own.
The difference between all these other publishers and this one guy is that all these publishers do one thing first: that is ask Blizzard's permission.
It may be true that others asked for permission (actually just one AFAIK, which is Prima, who has the rights to publish the "Official Guide"), but it's certainly not required. I don't have to get permission to write a book on how to use MS Excel, and have it published. That's not the point of copyright law. I can write the book, include screenshots and descriptions of how to use the interface, etc. It's fair use. It's not stealing anything from MS. It's simply describing how to use something effectively. He's doing the same with the WoW guide.
Not to defend blizzard here, but look at every other brand, you can't take them and start selling them as your own under any copyright law without the "used with permission" clause.
He's not selling anything that belongs to Blizzard. From what I've seen, he has properly attributed the material and trademarks that are used. There is no reasonable chance of anyone mistaking who owns the marks, and he's not trying to confuse anyone. He even notes on the first page that the guide is unauthorized.
Yes, lets all be outraged that any company would dare stand up for its IP rights. How dare they sue some poor 24 year old trying to exploit thier product for financial gain!
.
.
.
Oh wait, they didn't. HE sued THEM. Guess what, this guy brought it on himself and is now trying to build sympathy for his unsubstantiated case.
You're trolling most likely, but lest someone not rtfa and spot this, there should be a rebuttal. He is only suing because Blizzard repeatedly forced Ebay to remove his listings for the guide. He's doing the same thing that countless authors do all the time. They write a how-to guide on some piece of software, complete with explanations and screenshots. He's not ripping off their work. He's creating something that is helpful to a lot of people, and making fair use of a very limited number of images from the game to do so. I don't see the other authors being harrassed, so I don't see why Blizzard should get away with harrassing this guy either.
I'm afraid Blizzard does actually have a legal basis here, mainly because screenshots are involved.
Screenshots are used in 95%+ of the how-to books on computing that are out there today. I don't see them getting hauled into court. I fail to see how this is different.
It's hard for me to sympathize with Microsoft. They do make some good products, but they bring these problems on themselves. The emails that were revealed during the last two anti-trust cases here in the U.S. illustrated perfectly that they knew that they were breaking the law, and they laughed about it, and came off as a generally arrogant and unruly company. It seems to be their culture. Then again, they always manage to get away with it too, so I guess it works for them. So I don't begrudge anyone getting a piece of them while they can. It's a lot less punishment than Microsoft actually deserves.
Only 5? I would've thought you'd have to get even farther down Microsoft's own list to find someone who is relatively unbiased.
wrap a lil' tube around the wire, and pump cold water in it when you want to cool down the thing?
Then you'd need a way to cool down the water/coolant, which means at least a fan and radiator, which would further degrade its energy efficiency.
I'm thinking that until we come up with a good way to reinforce our skeletons, super muscles won't live up to their potential. It's no good having muscles that can pick up an SUV if you snap your bones in the process. The muscles have to anchor to something after all.
They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand.
Yet still a better offer than you get from regular copyright restrictions.
m I a prude, asexual, anti-sexual? No, not at all. But there is a reason I don't take a shit with the door open, and it applies here.
If you could find a market to broadcast that to, I'd say more power to you and just make sure I don't watch that channel (not that hard since I rarely watch live tv anyway). The bottom line is that people find sex to be entertaining, and enjoy many aspects of it. Everything from flirtation and innuendo to hardcore porn. It's a HUGE market. So obviously there are a HUGE number of people that enjoy it. The problem is the very vocal group, which judging by the viewing and sales numbers I suspect is a rather small minority, that will complain about sexual depictions on tv. I basically just think that the shows should be allowed to do as they wish and just warn people in advance. I really hope the FCC stays the hell away from cable too.
I'm not from the US but someone may be able to answer me: was nip-tuck aired at the same time-slot as the show in this slashdot article?
IIRC, nip-tuck is a cable show, not broadcast. So the FCC wouldn't have jurisdiction over that. Thankfully.
Maybe Canada is less prudish than the U.S.? I'm not current on my Canadian sensibilities training.
Showcase shows stuff like that ALL THE TIME
Wtf is Showcase?
Tactical voting is all well and good, but it's a band-aid on a system that is broken by design. People shouldn't have to try to calculate who is more likely to win a certain race, and there shouldn't have to be coordination on a large scale like some of the examples given in that wiki. Having people simply rank their choices on the ballot would fix the whole problem quite easily. No one throws away their vote by voting their conscience, and it doesn't require the coordination or strange and error-prone calculations that tactical voting does. It's a much simpler system. So while I agree that tactical voting is a necessary temporary patch on the system, it's certainly doesn't make the system any better.
None of that matters. It doesn't take magic to become a president. Currently it mostly just takes an assload of cash and promises to the right people. Even someone like Wesley Clark would have been a decent choice for president probably. If he or someone else could run independently of the parties, and therefore not have to sell their souls in the primaries, they could get elected. That would require that we change the election system though so that we don't have the damn vote-splitting problems.
Guys, here's a sugestion for getting a serious third party. START AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. Get people as a state and county/town/city legislator and judges.
While local level elections are easier to get a third party into, it still uses the same retarded election system. It still needs to be fixed. And we'd rather not wait 10-20 years to get a candidate into congress or the presidency.
What we need is for Perot and Nader to run at the same time. If we can keep symmetry in the left/right spectrum, then the "throwing away your vote" aregument carries much less weight.
That would be nice, but we shouldn't have to rely on that. We should just fix the system.
it is that the public is way too lazy to and ignorant to check into the viability of any other candidates. Until the extra parties can find a leader capable of pulling together a bunch of brain dead sheep, we will be stuck with two losers every few years.
People don't vote for third parties. The republicans will say "look what happened with Perot! You'll throw away your vote and the Democrats will win!". The Democrats will say "look what happened with Nader! You'll throw away your vote and the Republicans will win!". And so, that is why we need a sensible election system that let's people vote their conscience, and ranks the candidates so that nobody's vote is thrown away. Until we have that, there will always, and rightly so, be the fear of splitting the vote between the two most-favored candidates and thus causing the least-favored candidate to win. What a moronic system.
People see politics like sports these days. It's not about who's the right one for the job, or who's honest or not. It's all about rooting for your team and bashing the other team. That's all there is to it anymore.
but don't you think it would be bad for the court to use its power to affect how people vote?
If it encourages people to elect legislators who will pay attention to legal precedent and the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold, then no.