"Apple's offering is for people who play with their computer and who enjoy doing that, fair enough. Not for people who do serious work on them, at least not on their notebook offering."
Haha troll. I do serious work on my mac, compilation isn't an issue. I have the latest Power Book 17". Had you done your research you'd have known that the iBooks were not targetted at people doing development, that's your fault not theirs.
I just got back from a convention on development, guess what junior, 90% of the presenters were working with and presenting with Power Books.
"BSD people just confuse me. They give away their code in such a way that those who use it owe them nothing back at all. Company X can take your code, change it significantly, make it into a popular product, and give you absolutely nothing back. To me that is bad design."
Key phrases "owe them", "give you... nothing back". There's the difference. The BSD license is about technology. The GPL is about forcing people to behave the way you want them to, not so free is it?
Ummm the current world was achieved at an "unimaginable price in human suffering and death" too. The Allies winning the war didn't erase any of that. FURTHERMORE had say, the U.S. not gotten involved, the Nazi's could have ended the war more quickly and caused a LOWER amount of "human suffering and death".
You knew who would live and who would die huh? Funny, I recall hearing Leia tell Luke "she died when I was very young, she always seemed so sad" about their mother.... interesting stuff considering she now suddenly dies in childbirth.
Lucas is a tool. These movies were pretty much horrible across the board, not to mention he can't keep his facts straight. It's not that difficult to keep 6 movies internally consistent.
There MAY have been enough good stuff to make one movie, but the shit just overwhelms anything good.
"Which is all fine and well, except that this is the realm of philosophy every bit as much as it is the realm of religion, and oddly philosophy manages to fit well with science. Philosophy also doesn't have large entrenched hierarchical organisations that rule by fiat, but insyead runs as a meritocracy like science. Philosophy doesn't need to quibble over questions it can't answer (like the existence of God)."
What the fuck are you talking about... "oddly". Where the hell do you think modern science came from.
"It's not necessarily eternal anything. If there's no light to bounce around, there's no time. Now, I'm in no way trying to argue your valid point, I'm just pointing out that many people don't realize that time is not something that exists on its own. It is simply a measurement of "how long does the light travel from point A to point B".
Without light, eternal has as much meaning as saying that you are 2 away from me. "
Two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner. How is the sheep being represented?
Simple answer. The sheep voted, tough shit for him. He should have ran while the wolves voted.
Nice attempt at being clever, but your analogy doesn't fit the situation. Try again. I was even going to originally respond that that's the basis for this country's government, but you failed to even construct an analogy that matched that. This is isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. It's also a government where the sheep is provided basic rights.
When you participate in the electoral process, you are bound to it. Case closed.
Yeah, it's really awful that people can continue to benifit from thier creations for so long. IP should not go into the public domain untill the copyright holders chose for it to or the applicable law forces it to. What right do you have to claim it as "your" culture? Did you create it? Did you exert a single creative impulse to make it come into being? No, it was the copyright holders. Sure many of them did not actually create the material either but the material's creator gave them the copyright in exchange for, what they considered, fair compensation. You have no right to stand there demanding free access to the IP that someone else created on the basis that it is "your culture". What arrogance!
I create plenty of IP as I am a software engineer and your attitude smells of slavery. You want to force the IP creators to give away thier creations so that you do not have to expend any effort in acquiring it your self. That amounts to the producers becomeing the slaves of the consumers and that is wrong.
Slaves my ass. You want to know what right we have to it? We ALLOW you as a society a certain amount of protection for created work. We let you HAVE that time to profit from your work with the UNDERSTANDING that after a certain amount of time that work transfers into the public domain.
That way we encourage people to create, and grow the pool of content available to everyone. So the right we have to expect that work to go into the public domain is the EXACT same right you think you have to that work.
But hey, that's fine, if you don't want your work to go into the public domain. Consider the agreement null and void. Now you have NO claim to ownership and anyone can use anything you do at anytime for any reason.
Learn the facts spanky. IP laws ONLY exist in the context of that agreement. Content creators are granted a limited time of monopoly in exchange for that content becoming the property of all after a certain amount of time.
You don't OWN a certain sequence of notes, words, or whatever, EXCEPT via that agreement. It's not yours by any natural law, so get the fuck over yourself. How arrogant? How dare you think you deserve unlimited protection on something that isn't yours to begin with.
And BTW I'm an engineer too, who the fuck cares. That adds not one iota of authority to your post.
The candidate for whom I voted lost. How am I represented?
Doesn't matter. You still voted. You may not have gotten the result you wanted as an individual, but you DID participate in the process, and by doing so implicitly gave your consent to be represented by the winners.
I don't care if he is trying to protect his business. That still doesn't give him the right to try to copyright and trademark someone elses work. And regardless of what he is saying now, if he is allowed to do so, what's to stop him from trying and stamp out MAME in the future?
I can't believe I had to read down this far to finally see this point made.
It doesn't matter what he says his intentions are. Intentions aren't legally binding. Once he has the trademark he can do what he wishes.
This is not his trademark to apply for. It is not up to him to police those who use the logo, it's not his plain and simple.
Assuming he got the trademark, which he shouldn't be allowed to have under any circumstances, his intentions would only allow him to stop people from using that logo to sell their systems. Who cares? They're still going to sell them, and the logo for MAME isn't some sort of universal symbol for classic emulation, not to the mainstream public.
Unless these people are completely stupid there is a hidden agenda here. His claimed intentions with the trademark don't add up.
Furthermore, I'd really like to know why he's filing for a trademark as an individual. Is this standard practice? Is there a difference between corporate and individual trademarks that grants, or removes certain benefits or drawbacks? I suppose at the very least if he owns the trademark and the company goes belly up, it's still his trademark.
The whole/. commnuity is a wonderful study in conditional ethics and double standards. People who sell machines that compete with Ultracade based on MAME rely on customers to obtain ILLEGAL copies of the ROMS in question to play the games, or load the ROMS illegally.
When is the/. community going to recognize that as much as they want to be free, some things aren't and ought to be obtained legally. I am sure a large number of this community works for software compaines that generate revenue through the sale of licenses. Would you still have a job if I could sell working, hacked liceneses for pennys on the dollar? No.
Wake up people, not everything is free and you have to deal with it.
And the award for complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand goes to... this guy!
We'd like to believe that lawyers in this country only take cases that their ethics dictate, because we hold lawyers to such a high standard of trust. Unfortunately, it's simply not true. If lawyers refused cases because of ethics, people like Charles Manson and Larry Flynt wouldn't have legal representation. If we really believe that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how distasteful or evil they might be, then we'll have to admit that lawyers take cases without consulting their personal ethics. Either that, or we would have to start assigning agendas to lawyers that would undermine our entire justice system. Personally, I think that these aggrieved relatives are a hell of a lot more sympathetic than Charles Manson. They're not as holy as the Pope, but they don't have to be. Either way, it's not the lawyer's job to care. They take their client as they come, and do their best to zealously advocate their client's position. You cannot ask for less, because less would mean a half-assed prosecution or defense, and that is unjust and oppressive on its face.
If you still think I'm full of crap, take a day off from work and go down to your county courthouse when there's a criminal trial going. Judge for yourself if the defense lawyer believes his or her argument. I'll bet you can't tell. Then ask one who isn't working on a case, what percentage of the clients they got acquitted actually committed the crime.
Which is more likely: all of these lawyers are unethical, or they're all just doing their job as best they can?
You're making the assumption that everyone has the same set of personal ethics. That's not a valid assumption.
Charles Manson's lawyer could have a completely different sense of ethics than me, or the rest of the country for that matter. He can believe 100% that he's doing the right thing defending his client, he can believe he's not violating his personal ethics, and I can still accurately claim he's unethical. Most of the world would actually.
And that is precisely the situation you describe. Lawyers that take cases they know to be wrong have a different set of ethics. One that allows them to defend behaviour they believe to be wrong.
It IS the lawyers job to care. If a lawyer who KNOWS his client is guilty of murder and is a danger to society continues to do his best to allow that man to walk free, there are two people who belong in that cell.
It's a sticky situation. How do you fairly defend everyone, while not allowing the guilty to walk free? I don't know. What I do know is defending someone you know to be guilty is wrong. Claiming that it's ok for you do do something wrong because "it's my job" is wrong. There are no two ways about it.
Like hell it did. The DC games were limited in number and severely limited in scope. PS2 hype wasn't what killed the dreamcast no matter how much Sega fans want to cry about it.
It was a lack of a large range of quality titles. It was horrible industrial design. It was lack of support. And as much as I hate to say it, it was how easy you could copy games.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Especially since you realize that the masses ARE subsidizing that technology. Something that apparently is flying over the head of the others, so much so that it's not worth it trying to beat some sense through their thick skulls.
Again, amazing what you realize when you use your head.
The cost of bandwidth would not have, and would not continue to drop without commercial business.
It's not difficult to understand, you people just don't want to think.
Soma FM wouldn't even be possible without low cost internet access. It's highly unlikely you were even around before businesses had a presence on the net. Guess what junior. There was none of this stuff then, even getting a decent connection was a pain.
All of these free services, the free content you get now, it's all subsidized by the corporations who came online to make money. There were no broadband residential solutions, at least not convenient ones.
All of these things need to be paid for, one way or another. Get used to it.
And this:
Not only that but wireless internet access will mean that we can get new content almost anywhere at any time.
Has nothing to do with anything. But since you brought it up. Wireless networking? Highly unlikely if the advertising dollars didn't fund network growth.
But wait, if no one anywhere were listening or watching commercials you wouldn't be getting that free content.
And if big business hadn't started pouring money into the internet, that reasonably priced broadband connection you enjoy wouldn't exist. Oh and most likely neither would your ipod. Tivo either for that matter.
Amazing what you realize when you use your head to think about something.
12.95 a month is unlikely to be all his money. Expecially considering he's going to spend money on entertainment one way or another, 12.95 a month is really cheap. As far as time, who's to say how he should spend his free time.
... cool. Especially the protest march. But the pragmatist still won't let me buy a MMORPG. I'm too easily sucked in. I'd probably lose my GF, get fired, and put on 40 pounds when I couldn't tear myself away from it.
though I imagine in this guy's situation, it was a welcome refuge. Especially since he wasn't doing well financially.
Slashdot Mirror
"Its like leaving you stereo on the sidewalk and then labeling the guy who picks it up a thief for taking your shit."
No, it's more like leaving your stereo on your property and turned on, and some guy stopping to listen to it on the sidewalk in front of your house.
"Apple's offering is for people who play with their computer and who enjoy doing that, fair enough. Not for people who do serious work on them, at least not on their notebook offering."
Haha troll. I do serious work on my mac, compilation isn't an issue. I have the latest Power Book 17". Had you done your research you'd have known that the iBooks were not targetted at people doing development, that's your fault not theirs.
I just got back from a convention on development, guess what junior, 90% of the presenters were working with and presenting with Power Books.
BTW Games are not serious work kid.
"BSD people just confuse me. They give away their code in such a way that those who use it owe them nothing back at all. Company X can take your code, change it significantly, make it into a popular product, and give you absolutely nothing back. To me that is bad design."
... nothing back". There's the difference. The BSD license is about technology. The GPL is about forcing people to behave the way you want them to, not so free is it?
Key phrases "owe them", "give you
I'll bet there haven't been... mainly because the movie is called Real Genius.
Ummm the current world was achieved at an "unimaginable price in human suffering and death" too. The Allies winning the war didn't erase any of that. FURTHERMORE had say, the U.S. not gotten involved, the Nazi's could have ended the war more quickly and caused a LOWER amount of "human suffering and death".
Think before you speak.
Nope. Luke asks her about "their" mother I believe. And even if no explicitly, that's the implication.
You knew who would live and who would die huh? Funny, I recall hearing Leia tell Luke "she died when I was very young, she always seemed so sad" about their mother.... interesting stuff considering she now suddenly dies in childbirth.
Lucas is a tool. These movies were pretty much horrible across the board, not to mention he can't keep his facts straight. It's not that difficult to keep 6 movies internally consistent.
There MAY have been enough good stuff to make one movie, but the shit just overwhelms anything good.
"Which is all fine and well, except that this is the realm of philosophy every bit as much as it is the realm of religion, and oddly philosophy manages to fit well with science. Philosophy also doesn't have large entrenched hierarchical organisations that rule by fiat, but insyead runs as a meritocracy like science. Philosophy doesn't need to quibble over questions it can't answer (like the existence of God)."
What the fuck are you talking about... "oddly". Where the hell do you think modern science came from.
So are education, bravery, employment, and wealth.
Because the population is growing you fucking ninny.
"It's not necessarily eternal anything.
If there's no light to bounce around, there's no time.
Now, I'm in no way trying to argue your valid point, I'm just pointing out that many people don't realize that time is not something that exists on its own.
It is simply a measurement of "how long does the light travel from point A to point B".
Without light, eternal has as much meaning as saying that you are 2 away from me.
"
Nonsense.
Two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for dinner. How is the sheep being represented?
Simple answer. The sheep voted, tough shit for him. He should have ran while the wolves voted.
Nice attempt at being clever, but your analogy doesn't fit the situation. Try again. I was even going to originally respond that that's the basis for this country's government, but you failed to even construct an analogy that matched that. This is isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic. It's also a government where the sheep is provided basic rights.
When you participate in the electoral process, you are bound to it. Case closed.
Yeah, it's really awful that people can continue to benifit from thier creations for so long. IP should not go into the public domain untill the copyright holders chose for it to or the applicable law forces it to.
What right do you have to claim it as "your" culture? Did you create it? Did you exert a single creative impulse to make it come into being? No, it was the copyright holders. Sure many of them did not actually create the material either but the material's creator gave them the copyright in exchange for, what they considered, fair compensation. You have no right to stand there demanding free access to the IP that someone else created on the basis that it is "your culture". What arrogance!
I create plenty of IP as I am a software engineer and your attitude smells of slavery. You want to force the IP creators to give away thier creations so that you do not have to expend any effort in acquiring it your self. That amounts to the producers becomeing the slaves of the consumers and that is wrong.
Slaves my ass. You want to know what right we have to it? We ALLOW you as a society a certain amount of protection for created work. We let you HAVE that time to profit from your work with the UNDERSTANDING that after a certain amount of time that work transfers into the public domain.
That way we encourage people to create, and grow the pool of content available to everyone. So the right we have to expect that work to go into the public domain is the EXACT same right you think you have to that work.
But hey, that's fine, if you don't want your work to go into the public domain. Consider the agreement null and void. Now you have NO claim to ownership and anyone can use anything you do at anytime for any reason.
Learn the facts spanky. IP laws ONLY exist in the context of that agreement. Content creators are granted a limited time of monopoly in exchange for that content becoming the property of all after a certain amount of time.
You don't OWN a certain sequence of notes, words, or whatever, EXCEPT via that agreement. It's not yours by any natural law, so get the fuck over yourself. How arrogant? How dare you think you deserve unlimited protection on something that isn't yours to begin with.
And BTW I'm an engineer too, who the fuck cares. That adds not one iota of authority to your post.
The candidate for whom I voted lost. How am I represented?
Doesn't matter. You still voted. You may not have gotten the result you wanted as an individual, but you DID participate in the process, and by doing so implicitly gave your consent to be represented by the winners.
Then why, if both are equally fun, does Slashdot articles like this even exist?
Who knows. Why do you post the same thing over and over? Who knows.
I don't care if he is trying to protect his business. That still doesn't give him the right to try to copyright and trademark someone elses work. And regardless of what he is saying now, if he is allowed to do so, what's to stop him from trying and stamp out MAME in the future?
I can't believe I had to read down this far to finally see this point made.
It doesn't matter what he says his intentions are. Intentions aren't legally binding. Once he has the trademark he can do what he wishes.
This is not his trademark to apply for. It is not up to him to police those who use the logo, it's not his plain and simple.
Assuming he got the trademark, which he shouldn't be allowed to have under any circumstances, his intentions would only allow him to stop people from using that logo to sell their systems. Who cares? They're still going to sell them, and the logo for MAME isn't some sort of universal symbol for classic emulation, not to the mainstream public.
Unless these people are completely stupid there is a hidden agenda here. His claimed intentions with the trademark don't add up.
Furthermore, I'd really like to know why he's filing for a trademark as an individual. Is this standard practice? Is there a difference between corporate and individual trademarks that grants, or removes certain benefits or drawbacks? I suppose at the very least if he owns the trademark and the company goes belly up, it's still his trademark.
Bah this whole thing smells fishy.
The whole /. commnuity is a wonderful study in conditional ethics and double standards. People who sell machines that compete with Ultracade based on MAME rely on customers to obtain ILLEGAL copies of the ROMS in question to play the games, or load the ROMS illegally.
/. community going to recognize that as much as they want to be free, some things aren't and ought to be obtained legally. I am sure a large number of this community works for software compaines that generate revenue through the sale of licenses. Would you still have a job if I could sell working, hacked liceneses for pennys on the dollar? No.
... this guy!
When is the
Wake up people, not everything is free and you have to deal with it.
And the award for complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand goes to
Way to miss the point.
We'd like to believe that lawyers in this country only take cases that their ethics dictate, because we hold lawyers to such a high standard of trust. Unfortunately, it's simply not true. If lawyers refused cases because of ethics, people like Charles Manson and Larry Flynt wouldn't have legal representation. If we really believe that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how distasteful or evil they might be, then we'll have to admit that lawyers take cases without consulting their personal ethics. Either that, or we would have to start assigning agendas to lawyers that would undermine our entire justice system.
Personally, I think that these aggrieved relatives are a hell of a lot more sympathetic than Charles Manson. They're not as holy as the Pope, but they don't have to be. Either way, it's not the lawyer's job to care. They take their client as they come, and do their best to zealously advocate their client's position. You cannot ask for less, because less would mean a half-assed prosecution or defense, and that is unjust and oppressive on its face.
If you still think I'm full of crap, take a day off from work and go down to your county courthouse when there's a criminal trial going. Judge for yourself if the defense lawyer believes his or her argument. I'll bet you can't tell. Then ask one who isn't working on a case, what percentage of the clients they got acquitted actually committed the crime.
Which is more likely: all of these lawyers are unethical, or they're all just doing their job as best they can?
You're making the assumption that everyone has the same set of personal ethics. That's not a valid assumption.
Charles Manson's lawyer could have a completely different sense of ethics than me, or the rest of the country for that matter. He can believe 100% that he's doing the right thing defending his client, he can believe he's not violating his personal ethics, and I can still accurately claim he's unethical. Most of the world would actually.
And that is precisely the situation you describe. Lawyers that take cases they know to be wrong have a different set of ethics. One that allows them to defend behaviour they believe to be wrong.
It IS the lawyers job to care. If a lawyer who KNOWS his client is guilty of murder and is a danger to society continues to do his best to allow that man to walk free, there are two people who belong in that cell.
It's a sticky situation. How do you fairly defend everyone, while not allowing the guilty to walk free? I don't know. What I do know is defending someone you know to be guilty is wrong. Claiming that it's ok for you do do something wrong because "it's my job" is wrong. There are no two ways about it.
Jesus christ. The lawyer either takes the case or not depending on his personal ethics.
There's a distinct lack of ethics all around in this situation.
had a bigger base of games,
Like hell it did. The DC games were limited in number and severely limited in scope. PS2 hype wasn't what killed the dreamcast no matter how much Sega fans want to cry about it.
It was a lack of a large range of quality titles. It was horrible industrial design. It was lack of support. And as much as I hate to say it, it was how easy you could copy games.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Especially since you realize that the masses ARE subsidizing that technology. Something that apparently is flying over the head of the others, so much so that it's not worth it trying to beat some sense through their thick skulls.
Again, amazing what you realize when you use your head.
The cost of bandwidth would not have, and would not continue to drop without commercial business.
It's not difficult to understand, you people just don't want to think.
Soma FM wouldn't even be possible without low cost internet access. It's highly unlikely you were even around before businesses had a presence on the net. Guess what junior. There was none of this stuff then, even getting a decent connection was a pain.
All of these free services, the free content you get now, it's all subsidized by the corporations who came online to make money. There were no broadband residential solutions, at least not convenient ones.
All of these things need to be paid for, one way or another. Get used to it.
And this:
Not only that but wireless internet access will mean that we can get new content almost anywhere at any time.
Has nothing to do with anything. But since you brought it up. Wireless networking? Highly unlikely if the advertising dollars didn't fund network growth.
Yes good riddance.
But wait, if no one anywhere were listening or watching commercials you wouldn't be getting that free content.
And if big business hadn't started pouring money into the internet, that reasonably priced broadband connection you enjoy wouldn't exist. Oh and most likely neither would your ipod. Tivo either for that matter.
Amazing what you realize when you use your head to think about something.
I love people with attitudes like that. "It promotes violence against women", "It treats women as objects".
STFU will ya? Who the fuck are they to tell other women what they can and can't do?
12.95 a month is unlikely to be all his money. Expecially considering he's going to spend money on entertainment one way or another, 12.95 a month is really cheap. As far as time, who's to say how he should spend his free time.
though I imagine in this guy's situation, it was a welcome refuge. Especially since he wasn't doing well financially.