I hate the fact that every time I want a domain name its taken, as I hate the fact that most of the great real estate in the world is taken. But why on Earth should it be different?
Why shouldn't capitalism work freely? If Microsoft wants a domain that's taken, they should have registered it sooner. They can hardly claim a lack of foresight when it comes to technology. If they still want it now, they should pay for it. Plain and simple.
Domain names are expensive and sought after pieces of real estate.
And if Microsoft is pissed off because the owners of that real estate are simply "squatting" to make a buck, then there's quite a few unused Microsoft patents I'd like to direct their attention to...
"Seems to be something of an underground indie hit"
Apparently you're too young to have experienced spending an entire day in class just thinking of how to get across that damn ravine, or how to keep the lamp from getting wet, or how to get Floyd the robot to stay alive, or how to get the black rod. Infocom was probably as huge a part of my childhood as George Lucas (and if that statement seems silly to you, then you're really young and were tarnished by Jar Jar at too young an age). Underground? Indie? No. Just very early 80's. Unlike "video games", Infocom games were (at the time) as full immersion as you could get. It might seem funny now, but for me and many others the nostalgia runs deep.
Riiight. You send them your "crappy back of the napkin idea", and they'll use their razor sharp Oxbridge eyes to spot its actual brilliance. (You didn't even *know* it was brilliant. Afgterall, you're just some dolt in a bar.)
Yes, these chosen ones have a unique talent: not for actually generating ideas, but for "knowing it when they actually see it". \
Now here's the question: Let's just say for the sake of argument you had the most incredible idea for a media company in the history of corporate media.... Great! You've earned yourself a big thank you from these guys, and the satisfaction of seeing them promoted.
Sounds fair and bright to you? That's funny, it sounds like an immense pile of horseshit to me.
I hope it is the Dig. I absolutely *loved* that game. The voice acting was first rate. The music was amazing, and the plot was fantastic.
The ending was a little 'blah' but its one of the few adventure games that hasn't pandered to teens, gone 'cutesy' with graphics, or been afraid of telling a great sci-fi story in cinematic style.
If you're not discarding data when you're adjusting color-balance and other settings, you're by definition not compressing as much as you possibly can.
For example, if I desaturate a photo I'm throwing away tons of color information. If that color information is still being written to the file, the file isn't as small as it could be.
Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.
Excuse the troll-like subject title above, but if a neuro interface that could actually reflect precise movements and commands had been invented, the company would be running straight to the vastly more lucrative military market long before taking a look at home consoles.
The fact that its coming straight to home consoles suggests that hype and hope will be the products primary market drivers.
Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Other notable US court decisions involving parody include Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (Affirming the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves),
((Then again, that's in the US. Not sure about Australia))
To make this discussion about god or the supernatural is to jump to a very advanced (unsimple) explanation.
The real explanation is much simpler: Human beings are hard wired to find answers. The application of this is that we connect dots. On the most fundamental levels, our brain is a "dot connector": Our brains connect multiple nerve singles to form a cognitive sense of touch. Our brains render wholeness from the imperfect matrix of our rods and cones.
On more advanced levels our brain seeks to connect groups of dots to find cognitive "wholes" from elements and/or concepts in our surroundings.
God, is just our brain leaping to the ultimate easy answer. Its that ultimate dot that explains every series of other dots there is -- or every question that exists. Its a conceptual piece of very dangerous code. It short circuits all questions -- prematurely exiting our most basic function call: to formulate answers.
Is belief in the supernatural innate? No but we have 3 conflicting programs: the need to connect dots (solve problems, answer questions), the desire for things to be easier (our id), and the ability to imagine things that are conceptual. (the 2nd one is really optional I suppose).
A 'belief in the supernatural' is just a product of this equation. So in essence, yes we are hardwired to believe in the supernatural. But that belief is a random byproduct of other forces. If anything, supernatural beliefs represent an evolutionary disadvantage (on an individual level) because it compromises a vital piece of our primary software.
On a social level it is arguable that it is a behavior that benefits the society while harming the individual -- but that's another topic...
Especially since XDrive has been around since 1997, was one of the original web 1.0 storage pioneers and features excellent OS integration (becoming drive X: on your machine). It's also both the slickest and most reliable.
And it gives you 5x the storage of the new players.
What these newcomers offer that XDrive doesn't isn't at all clear.
This idiotic policy doesn't even work in T-Mobile's interests. Third party software encourages people to use data services, which encourages them to sign up for data plans, which makes T-Mobile money. A more liberal policy on mobile apps also might help the nation's #4 carrier win customers away from control freaks like Verizon, with their strictly limited set of applications.
The third party software they're afraid of is VOIP software that encourages people to use data services as a replacement for their overpriced phone plans.
(Why are there 160 comments above mine with no mention of this?)
What exactly is the destructive power of a laser though? Can it penetrate deeply? A laser pointed directly at the ground, does what exactly?
I'm not sure I understand the military potential here simply because I don't understand the physics of what is actually happening with this kind of exposure to laser radiation.
It has no "impact force" per se, so we're talking about destroying through heat -- but how far (as in depth) does that actually get you?
Billions of dollars trade hands in Internet commerce annually. A very small percentage of which is one-click. Undoubtedly, the "One Click" patent is ridiculous because it fails the test of being "obvious", but the issue is -- if "One Click" wasn't patented would it be as commonly used as many believe?
Amazon has touted the one click patent to the ire of the world, but its important to remember that most Amazon purchases are *not made through one-click*. Why does Amazon fight so hard to keep "One Click", then?
The answer is two words: "Stock Price". Remember that Amazon went for years and years as an unprofitable company with a lot of expectation of future profit. Throughout those years they touted their ultra-efficient infrastructure and their patented IP (including "One Click") as justifications for their high P/E ratio.
The battle for "One Click" is less of a battle for vital, core-business IP and more of a battle for the public perception that Amazon has a "secret sauce".
Let 'em keep it if they want it. IMHO "One Click" is as much a 'security nightmare waiting to happen' as it is a revenue booster. I see it as Amazon's Active-X. But even if it never turns into a security risk, its tough to claim that Amazon's deathgrip on "One Click" is stifling internet commerce, which grows by leaps and bounds annually.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else fall for the original "Palm Software-Only GPS" download?
It drew a big "X" on your palm pilot screen, along with some text that read "You Are Here".
But a few people got there before I did.
I hate the fact that every time I want a domain name its taken, as I hate the fact that most
of the great real estate in the world is taken. But why on Earth should it be different?
Why shouldn't capitalism work freely? If Microsoft wants a domain that's taken, they should
have registered it sooner. They can hardly claim a lack of foresight when it comes to
technology. If they still want it now, they should pay for it. Plain and simple.
Domain names are expensive and sought after pieces of real estate.
And if Microsoft is pissed off because the owners of that real estate are simply "squatting"
to make a buck, then there's quite a few unused Microsoft patents I'd like to direct
their attention to...
well, patent squatting is a growing problem for independent developers
(not to mention, a problem to general human progress).
maybe microsoft and 'others' should take a long look in the mirror
before accusing others of squatting for financial self-interest.
"Seems to be something of an underground indie hit"
Apparently you're too young to have experienced spending an entire day in class just thinking of how to get across that damn ravine, or how to keep the lamp from getting wet, or how to get Floyd the robot to stay alive, or how to get the black rod. Infocom was probably as huge a part of my childhood as George Lucas (and if that statement seems silly to you, then you're really young and were tarnished by Jar Jar at too young an age). Underground? Indie? No. Just very early 80's. Unlike "video games", Infocom games were (at the time) as full immersion as you could get. It might seem funny now, but for me and many others the nostalgia runs deep.
which, by the way has more bearing on reality than the semantics of the word "planet".
this is *still* a non-story.
Riiight. You send them your "crappy back of the napkin idea", and they'll use their razor sharp Oxbridge eyes to spot its actual brilliance. (You didn't even *know* it was brilliant. Afgterall, you're just some dolt in a bar.)
Yes, these chosen ones have a unique talent: not for actually generating ideas, but for "knowing it when they actually see it". \
Now here's the question: Let's just say for the sake of argument you had the most incredible idea for a media company in the history of corporate media.... Great! You've earned yourself a big thank you from these guys, and the satisfaction of seeing them promoted.
Sounds fair and bright to you? That's funny, it sounds like an immense pile of horseshit to me.
"We have no ideas."
"Your momma's kids are fucking retarded". ......oh yeah, "in Vegas".
I hope it is the Dig. I absolutely *loved* that game. The voice acting was first rate. The music was amazing, and the plot was fantastic.
The ending was a little 'blah' but its one of the few adventure games that hasn't pandered to teens, gone 'cutesy' with graphics, or been afraid of telling a great sci-fi story in cinematic style.
I'd play that game again in a heartbeat.
Mod parent up!
If you're not discarding data when you're adjusting color-balance and other settings, you're by definition not compressing as much as you possibly can.
For example, if I desaturate a photo I'm throwing away tons of color information. If that color information is still being written to the file, the file isn't as small as it could be.
Aside from that, PNG should have dethroned JPG long ago for the very simple reason that it contains an alpha channel -- but I still see plenty of JPG's.
It was big, blue and incredibly lost.
Excuse the troll-like subject title above, but if a neuro interface that could actually reflect precise movements and commands had been invented, the company would be running straight to the vastly more lucrative military market long before taking a look at home consoles.
The fact that its coming straight to home consoles suggests that hype and hope will be the products primary market drivers.
My two cents.
Take your amateur footage and put it online.
Get an AdSense Account.
Poof, you're a professional.
As you are very clearly not aware, I mentioned this in my post.
Parody: Copyright Issues
______________________________________________
Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 USC 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Other notable US court decisions involving parody include Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (Affirming the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves),
((Then again, that's in the US. Not sure about Australia))
To make this discussion about god or the supernatural is to jump to a very advanced
(unsimple) explanation.
The real explanation is much simpler: Human beings are hard wired to find answers.
The application of this is that we connect dots. On the most fundamental levels, our
brain is a "dot connector": Our brains connect multiple nerve singles to form a cognitive
sense of touch. Our brains render wholeness from the imperfect matrix of our rods
and cones.
On more advanced levels our brain seeks to connect groups of dots to find cognitive "wholes"
from elements and/or concepts in our surroundings.
God, is just our brain leaping to the ultimate easy answer. Its that ultimate dot that explains
every series of other dots there is -- or every question that exists. Its a conceptual piece of very
dangerous code. It short circuits all questions -- prematurely exiting our most basic
function call: to formulate answers.
Is belief in the supernatural innate? No but we have 3 conflicting programs: the need
to connect dots (solve problems, answer questions), the desire for things to be easier (our id),
and the ability to imagine things that are conceptual. (the 2nd one is really optional I suppose).
A 'belief in the supernatural' is just a product of this equation. So in essence, yes we are hardwired
to believe in the supernatural. But that belief is a random byproduct of other forces. If anything,
supernatural beliefs represent an evolutionary disadvantage (on an individual level) because it compromises
a vital piece of our primary software.
On a social level it is arguable that it is a behavior that benefits the society while harming the
individual -- but that's another topic...
: P
Especially since XDrive has been around since 1997, was one of the original web 1.0
storage pioneers and features excellent OS integration (becoming drive X: on your machine).
It's also both the slickest and most reliable.
And it gives you 5x the storage of the new players.
What these newcomers offer that XDrive doesn't isn't at all clear.
Mmmaaaatt Daaaamon
This idiotic policy doesn't even work in T-Mobile's interests. Third party software encourages people to use data services, which encourages them to sign up for data plans, which makes T-Mobile money. A more liberal policy on mobile apps also might help the nation's #4 carrier win customers away from control freaks like Verizon, with their strictly limited set of applications.
The third party software they're afraid of is VOIP software that encourages people to use data services as a replacement for their overpriced phone plans.
(Why are there 160 comments above mine with no mention of this?)
What exactly is the destructive power of a laser though? Can it penetrate deeply? A laser pointed directly at the ground, does what exactly?
I'm not sure I understand the military potential here simply because I don't understand the physics of what is actually happening with this kind of exposure to laser radiation.
It has no "impact force" per se, so we're talking about destroying through heat -- but how far (as in depth) does that actually get you?
Anyone?
The act of releasing rushed and unfinished product on to the marketplace is as ancient as commerce itself.
It doesn't hurt the industry as much as it helps those who have a high standard of production.
The onus is on us, the consumers, to identify and asess quality prior to purchase -- as it has been for millennia.
Billions of dollars trade hands in Internet commerce annually. A very small percentage of which is one-click.
Undoubtedly, the "One Click" patent is ridiculous because it fails the test of being "obvious", but the issue
is -- if "One Click" wasn't patented would it be as commonly used as many believe?
Amazon has touted the one click patent to the ire of the world, but its important to remember that most Amazon
purchases are *not made through one-click*. Why does Amazon fight so hard to keep "One Click", then?
The answer is two words: "Stock Price". Remember that Amazon went for years and years as an unprofitable company
with a lot of expectation of future profit. Throughout those years they touted their ultra-efficient infrastructure
and their patented IP (including "One Click") as justifications for their high P/E ratio.
The battle for "One Click" is less of a battle for vital, core-business IP and more of a battle for the public
perception that Amazon has a "secret sauce".
Let 'em keep it if they want it. IMHO "One Click" is as much a 'security nightmare waiting to happen' as it is a
revenue booster. I see it as Amazon's Active-X. But even if it never turns into a security risk, its tough to
claim that Amazon's deathgrip on "One Click" is stifling internet commerce, which grows by leaps and bounds
annually.
(I meant Ajax13, not Ajax9) - woop