Should I be able to open stores called K-Mart just because I feel like it? Then why should google be able to run pay-per-click ads using trademarked names they WEREN'T GIVEN PERMISSION FOR.
Because permission is not necessary. Go ahead and trademark a word. You cannot stop me from using it. You can only stop me from using it to deceive people into thinking that I'm the owner of the trademark.
For example, I can talk about Windows all day long. I can say my product is better than windows. I can put it in the yellow pages with the banner "Looking for Windows? Try my product instead!".
Using a competitor's trademark is not necessarily illegal. A trademark doesn't allow you to forbid people from referring to your product by name. A business can say, for instance, "we have better prices than Acme," even if Acme is trademarked.
They aren't allowed to use a trademark to mislead consumers about who they are dealing with. Trademarks are intended to eliminate confusion. I don't believe using a competitor's trademarked name in a keyword is always a problem; it depends on the ad, and what claims are made therein.
The grandparent post said "A great deal of Reagan speeches, done for GE radio and written in his own hand, have been found and published to general acclaim.".
Which is true, and a specific rebuttal to what its parent claimed. In response, you ranted emotionally. ("one of the worst presidents we've ever had by any metric you'd care to name"... You can say that while keeping a straight face?)
The funny thing is your ending comment about making a sane statement. Hey, disagree with Reagan all you want, there are plenty of valid criticisms, but keep a brain in your head while you do it. Science isn't the only field that needs to be approached rationally to discern the truth.
Also, I think the generally high standard of statistical reliability, while good for science, is not always appropriate in other fields.
I work in Marketing (yeah, I know), and we use a lot of statistical techniques in modeling behavior. Sometimes a decision simply needs to be made, and in those cases you go with the best option, even if there's only a 60% chance that the correlation you're seeing is true.
Much of life, politics, relationships, and so forth, are navigated with far less certainty than science. Knowing that a representative is probably corrupt isn't enough to convict him, but it should influence your dealing with him.
Is selling better, not has sold better. It is selling at a greater rate than those two consoles did when introduced. It's a foregone conclusion that it will move more units than either of those two.
And everything else with the possible exception of the controls, which, of course, haven't been shown to really have any potential at all.
When you argue, you should refrain from making truly bizarre statements. They ruin the credibility of your more sensible points. The controls _obviously_and_clearly_ have vast potential. If you want to argue that the Wii graphics are poor compared to PS3, go ahead. That's a defensible position. But arguing that the Wiimote doesn't have 'any potential at all' just shows to everyone that you're arguing from an emotional viewpoint.
It's funny that people think that all there is to processing power is "graphics and eye-candy." It's like they haven't been paying any attention to the reasons why games have improved since Pong.
You're really fooling yourself if you think that improvements in processing power are promoting deeper gameplay. What game for the PS3 would have been impossible on the PS2, if we aren't worried about cutting graphical quality? Not one. Same with 360 and x-box. "Gears of war", with the same gameplay, but with six year old graphics, would have thoroughly doable on the x-box. In fact, you might argue that the increased labor cost due to designing more detailed resources has been forcing game shops to shorten games.
And yes, the Wii does have popular titles without online multiplayer. Unfortunately, all of them are made by Nintendo, and they're mostly being bought by long-time Nintendo fans who obviously never cared about online multiplayer to begin with.
Wii is selling much better than the Gamecube and N64, so unless you're arguing that a bunch of old SNES loyalists are getting back into the console buying business, you're wrong.
I don't remember ever seeing a console succeed whose full potential could be realized so quickly.
It hasn't, though. Not close. Oh... you mean graphics. Yeah, maybe. That's a bit of a myopic view, though. The interface (gamepads) for the 360 and PS3 hit their full potential... what? Eight or ten years ago?
And how do you explain all the games for the PS3 and 360 which have no planned ports for the Wii, even after the third parties are supposed to have "gotten it"?
Because there are fundamental differences between the Wii and the other two consoles. There are just as many games for the Wii that are not being ported to the PS3 and 360, also... because they would have to be stripped down and rebuilt. The 360 and PS3 are, in a lot of ways, very similar consoles... like the x-box and PS2 were last gen. And since the market is fast approaching 50% Wii, and 50% 360+PS3, it looks like plenty of games will be built for both.
Sadly, that game was the biggest disappointment I've seen from Nintendo in this current generation. It's absolutely pointless without a DS and Pokemon cartridge. All it really does is allow you to redo some battles on the tv.
"Because it's a wink saying "I know you computer guys have it there somewhere! Cough it up!"."
And she was right. The judge knows the technology better than you know law.
Piratebay must now log IP addresses. Is that possible? Yes. Is it reasonable to preserve that evidence during a court case? Yes.
Is this equivalent to saving every bit of ram every nanosecond? No. Will giving a core dump, when her instructions were clear, get you in contempt and thrown in jail? Very possibly. And you'd deserve it.
What GPL copyrights is MS impinging upon? MS made a deal with a company that was distributing software with a GPL license, and then the FSF changed the license in an attempt to force MS to give away it's patents. It was a sleazy move by the FSF, and will fail in court, and is harmful to the whole open source movement.
"Software as a service" should be viewed with the same suspicion as "Trusted Computing." Something so bundled in Marketing, with no particular benefits to the consumer, has to be a money/power grab.
Thanks to all of you who are cutting edge, purchasing all these incompatible devices under the spectre of still-evolving standards. When I, and the rest of the world, follow in your footsteps three years from now, the process will be smooth and error-free because of your trials and tribulations.
Seriously, I'm grateful for you guys. You take it on the chin so we don't have to.
"It's" is a contraction for "it is", like "he's" for "he is" and "she's" for "she is". "Its" is an possessive pronoun, like "his". You wouldn't apostrophize "hi's", and you don't apostrophize "it's".
I already knew everything that you just said, but I don't think I've ever seen it laid out so simply and plainly. I may re-use that synopsis, if you don't mind.
Set a risk measure and goal for shuttle tiles, for example - 0% risk of a tile related catastrophic failure upon re-entry. Then make the engineers plan for how they will achieve it. If the engineers fail at achieving this, causing a catastrophic failure, start license removal procedures on the engineer that signed off on it, followed by criminal charges.
That's blatantly ridiculous for a number of reasons obvious to any reader. In fact, any engineer that signs off on a statement that there's a 0% chance of risk is incompetent. (Although, maybe he'll get promoted to project manager that way...)
Banning porn is a violation of the constitution, but we've never had a Supreme Court that's brave enough to actually rule that way. So we ban it, and ignore the fact that we're censoring.
Yeah, the idea that the Sun is going out and we need to drop bombs to restart it is pretty silly, but there's a little more to it than that. Check out this link to an interview with the film's science advisor.
To sum it up, the Sun picks up a wandering Q-ball, which is a supersymetrical particle left over from the big bang. It begins disrupting the Sun. However, with a large enough energy input, it can be broken into harmless sub-particles.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I be able to open stores called K-Mart just because I feel like it? Then why should google be able to run pay-per-click ads using trademarked names they WEREN'T GIVEN PERMISSION FOR.
Because permission is not necessary. Go ahead and trademark a word. You cannot stop me from using it. You can only stop me from using it to deceive people into thinking that I'm the owner of the trademark.
For example, I can talk about Windows all day long. I can say my product is better than windows. I can put it in the yellow pages with the banner "Looking for Windows? Try my product instead!".
Using a competitor's trademark is not necessarily illegal. A trademark doesn't allow you to forbid people from referring to your product by name. A business can say, for instance, "we have better prices than Acme," even if Acme is trademarked.
They aren't allowed to use a trademark to mislead consumers about who they are dealing with. Trademarks are intended to eliminate confusion. I don't believe using a competitor's trademarked name in a keyword is always a problem; it depends on the ad, and what claims are made therein.
That's not a problem, that's a feature.
The grandparent post said "A great deal of Reagan speeches, done for GE radio and written in his own hand, have been found and published to general acclaim.".
Which is true, and a specific rebuttal to what its parent claimed. In response, you ranted emotionally. ("one of the worst presidents we've ever had by any metric you'd care to name"... You can say that while keeping a straight face?)
The funny thing is your ending comment about making a sane statement. Hey, disagree with Reagan all you want, there are plenty of valid criticisms, but keep a brain in your head while you do it. Science isn't the only field that needs to be approached rationally to discern the truth.
Also, I think the generally high standard of statistical reliability, while good for science, is not always appropriate in other fields.
I work in Marketing (yeah, I know), and we use a lot of statistical techniques in modeling behavior. Sometimes a decision simply needs to be made, and in those cases you go with the best option, even if there's only a 60% chance that the correlation you're seeing is true.
Much of life, politics, relationships, and so forth, are navigated with far less certainty than science. Knowing that a representative is probably corrupt isn't enough to convict him, but it should influence your dealing with him.
Wow, you have a future in journalism.
Apology accepted.
Is selling better, not has sold better. It is selling at a greater rate than those two consoles did when introduced. It's a foregone conclusion that it will move more units than either of those two.
And everything else with the possible exception of the controls, which, of course, haven't been shown to really have any potential at all.
When you argue, you should refrain from making truly bizarre statements. They ruin the credibility of your more sensible points. The controls _obviously_and_clearly_ have vast potential. If you want to argue that the Wii graphics are poor compared to PS3, go ahead. That's a defensible position. But arguing that the Wiimote doesn't have 'any potential at all' just shows to everyone that you're arguing from an emotional viewpoint.
So what the AC said, although obviously correct, should be ignored because we don't have a name attached?
It's funny that people think that all there is to processing power is "graphics and eye-candy." It's like they haven't been paying any attention to the reasons why games have improved since Pong.
You're really fooling yourself if you think that improvements in processing power are promoting deeper gameplay. What game for the PS3 would have been impossible on the PS2, if we aren't worried about cutting graphical quality? Not one. Same with 360 and x-box. "Gears of war", with the same gameplay, but with six year old graphics, would have thoroughly doable on the x-box. In fact, you might argue that the increased labor cost due to designing more detailed resources has been forcing game shops to shorten games.
And yes, the Wii does have popular titles without online multiplayer. Unfortunately, all of them are made by Nintendo, and they're mostly being bought by long-time Nintendo fans who obviously never cared about online multiplayer to begin with.
Wii is selling much better than the Gamecube and N64, so unless you're arguing that a bunch of old SNES loyalists are getting back into the console buying business, you're wrong.
I don't remember ever seeing a console succeed whose full potential could be realized so quickly.
It hasn't, though. Not close. Oh... you mean graphics. Yeah, maybe. That's a bit of a myopic view, though. The interface (gamepads) for the 360 and PS3 hit their full potential... what? Eight or ten years ago?
And how do you explain all the games for the PS3 and 360 which have no planned ports for the Wii, even after the third parties are supposed to have "gotten it"?
Because there are fundamental differences between the Wii and the other two consoles. There are just as many games for the Wii that are not being ported to the PS3 and 360, also... because they would have to be stripped down and rebuilt. The 360 and PS3 are, in a lot of ways, very similar consoles... like the x-box and PS2 were last gen. And since the market is fast approaching 50% Wii, and 50% 360+PS3, it looks like plenty of games will be built for both.
You're assuming the reduction in buttons is a bad thing. I would argue that using every button on a dual-shock is an example of poor UI design.
Waggle doesn't change anything.
I think it changes consoles fundamentally, just as much as the mouse changed desktop computing.
Sadly, that game was the biggest disappointment I've seen from Nintendo in this current generation. It's absolutely pointless without a DS and Pokemon cartridge. All it really does is allow you to redo some battles on the tv.
If I found mini-games fun, I'd be playing Minesweeper instead of posting to slashdot.
You know, following that logic, I think I can prove that you find nothing fun other than posting on Slashdot.
"Because it's a wink saying "I know you computer guys have it there somewhere! Cough it up!"."
And she was right. The judge knows the technology better than you know law.
Piratebay must now log IP addresses. Is that possible? Yes. Is it reasonable to preserve that evidence during a court case? Yes.
Is this equivalent to saving every bit of ram every nanosecond? No. Will giving a core dump, when her instructions were clear, get you in contempt and thrown in jail? Very possibly. And you'd deserve it.
And I'm sorry for adding the apostrophe in "it's".
What GPL copyrights is MS impinging upon? MS made a deal with a company that was distributing software with a GPL license, and then the FSF changed the license in an attempt to force MS to give away it's patents. It was a sleazy move by the FSF, and will fail in court, and is harmful to the whole open source movement.
This article. He's got a good point.
"Software as a service" should be viewed with the same suspicion as "Trusted Computing." Something so bundled in Marketing, with no particular benefits to the consumer, has to be a money/power grab.
Thanks to all of you who are cutting edge, purchasing all these incompatible devices under the spectre of still-evolving standards. When I, and the rest of the world, follow in your footsteps three years from now, the process will be smooth and error-free because of your trials and tribulations.
Seriously, I'm grateful for you guys. You take it on the chin so we don't have to.
"It's" is a contraction for "it is", like "he's" for "he is" and "she's" for "she is". "Its" is an possessive pronoun, like "his". You wouldn't apostrophize "hi's", and you don't apostrophize "it's".
I already knew everything that you just said, but I don't think I've ever seen it laid out so simply and plainly. I may re-use that synopsis, if you don't mind.
Set a risk measure and goal for shuttle tiles, for example - 0% risk of a tile related catastrophic failure upon re-entry. Then make the engineers plan for how they will achieve it. If the engineers fail at achieving this, causing a catastrophic failure, start license removal procedures on the engineer that signed off on it, followed by criminal charges.
That's blatantly ridiculous for a number of reasons obvious to any reader. In fact, any engineer that signs off on a statement that there's a 0% chance of risk is incompetent. (Although, maybe he'll get promoted to project manager that way...)
Banning porn is a violation of the constitution, but we've never had a Supreme Court that's brave enough to actually rule that way. So we ban it, and ignore the fact that we're censoring.
The science is not as out there as it seems.
Yeah, the idea that the Sun is going out and we need to drop bombs to restart it is pretty silly, but there's a little more to it than that. Check out this link to an interview with the film's science advisor.
To sum it up, the Sun picks up a wandering Q-ball, which is a supersymetrical particle left over from the big bang. It begins disrupting the Sun. However, with a large enough energy input, it can be broken into harmless sub-particles.
Improbable, yes, but not pure fantasy.