The other successful arcade model is the Dave & Buster's model. Bar and arcade, cater to adults. Alcohol sales ftw. A friend of mine once called it the "barcade," which I always hoped would stick.
We shouldn't be bailing out any of the automakers, but since we are wasting the money anyway, I would greatly prefer the money to go to companies with *vision* rather than to companies that will waste the money making hybrid SUVs.
What Cake song is that from? I have all their albums and I'm pretty sure I've never heard those lyrics before. A google search for the lyrics unfortunately revealed nothing.
The name suggests that this is a consumer organization, but all I see is an industry backed troll... Why would any consumer advocate *against* used game sales?
Absolutely correct. Copyright law in the US is based on the idea of a utilitarian social contract. "In order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" as the US Constitution puts it.
Outside the United States, copyright law is largely based on Lockean moral rights. Workers have a right to their work product. Under this theory, copyright can protect works with little to no creativity.
Although I am largely a believer in Locke's natural rights, I do not believe that it is a good idea to apply them in the field of Intellectual Property. I favor the general US approach, although I have many issues with the way the US Congress has implemented IP laws.
I agree that the studio features could have had more vision, but I disagree that guitar hero is bad for the future of music. Sure, a lot of people are going to be playing plastic instruments. But some of those people are going to want more, and they are going to pick up real instruments. And these are people that otherwise would not have gone near a real instrument.
There will be a famous musician five or ten years from now who says "Guitar Hero inspired me to learn how to play guitar." And then he'll say "ka-ching" and collect a huge check.
I was going to mod you up, but I'll comment instead so people understand.
A big part of the problem with the H1B program is that the visas are tied to one employer. A foreigner comes over to work, finds out the job is crappy, and is stuck in the job. She can't find a better job with better pay or better hours. She either works to the end of the visa, or goes back to her country early.
A big improvement to the program would be to cut this tie. Employers would have to compete for H1B workers, just like they have to compete for American workers. This will raise the wages of H1B workers, which will make H1B workers *less* desirable over American workers.
There would be less H1Bs, and the ones that remained would be skilled workers whose skills are genuinely needed.
In summary, better treatment for H1B workers will lead to better wages and more jobs for American workers.
Of course all the new apartments in NYC are luxury apartments. Anything built to be affordable will end up being rent controlled, at a huge loss to the landlord. Why take the risk? Either build luxury apartments or don't build at all.
It's too bad for the all the small private companies that have been investing in green vehicles. The government just gave the big guys $25 billion dollars to retrofit their plants to make "more efficient" vehicles. It's hard to compete against free government money. This waste will contribute to more problems in the future. Why make a risky bet on alternative energy? Just invest in the same old inefficient technologies, and then when it's way too late to switch over, the government will bail you out.
I personally have no problem with black box voting machines, provided that they print out a human readable ballot, and the printed ballot is the only official ballot for the purpose of vote counting.
Open source was always a distraction from the real issue. I like open source, but we shouldn't use this issue to try to push open source. It just doesn't make sense. Open source doesn't guarantee security. If the computer is responsible for maintaining the vote total, there will be the possibility of mischief, whether the software is open source or not.
First sale doctrine. It's a basic consumer right. A book publisher can't tell you what you can do with a book after you have purchased it. Similarly, a video game publisher shouldn't be able to tell you what you can do with your video game after you have purchased it.
Sadly, as far as digital copyrighted works are concerned, the first sale doctrine went out the window with the digital millennium copyright act. Now content sellers can place "technological protection measures" on their products, and it is illegal to break them.
"We're not violating your patent. This is an implementation of our own patent." Then the shoe is on the other foot, and the patent troll must invalidate your patent.
A patent does not give you the right to implement an invention. A patent only gives you the right to exclude others from using your invention. If the invention in one patent covers an improvement over the invention of another patent, neither patent holder can utilize the invention without a license from the other. In this situation there is said to be "blocking patents."
It's true that patent applications have to be filed for an inventor... but a company that owns an invention is allowed to file a patent application on behalf of a *hostile* inventor. A non participating inventor is not going to stop a company that wants a patent.
The most obvious is that the drug company doesn't want to make it known that they're working on drug X. Not sure how that works, but you could imagine that they might have to patent it to keep others from using it, and then the clock on the patent starts before they actually get it working.
Except clinical trials are not required to attain patent protection. Any drug company with good patent practitioners is going to have a patent application filed *before* clinical trials. You can always abandon it later if the clinical trials don't work out. It's much cheaper to file and then abandon an application on a drug than to miss the opportunity to get a patent on a successful drug.
Slashdot Mirror
The other successful arcade model is the Dave & Buster's model. Bar and arcade, cater to adults. Alcohol sales ftw. A friend of mine once called it the "barcade," which I always hoped would stick.
Thanks. It's from way back on their first album, which I guess is why I didn't remember it.
We shouldn't be bailing out any of the automakers, but since we are wasting the money anyway, I would greatly prefer the money to go to companies with *vision* rather than to companies that will waste the money making hybrid SUVs.
What Cake song is that from? I have all their albums and I'm pretty sure I've never heard those lyrics before. A google search for the lyrics unfortunately revealed nothing.
The name suggests that this is a consumer organization, but all I see is an industry backed troll... Why would any consumer advocate *against* used game sales?
Alaska doesn't replace Senators by governor appointment. They would have had a special election. Palin likely would have won.
Unfortunately it seems to have been pushed back to 2009 =[
Absolutely correct. Copyright law in the US is based on the idea of a utilitarian social contract. "In order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" as the US Constitution puts it.
Outside the United States, copyright law is largely based on Lockean moral rights. Workers have a right to their work product. Under this theory, copyright can protect works with little to no creativity.
Although I am largely a believer in Locke's natural rights, I do not believe that it is a good idea to apply them in the field of Intellectual Property. I favor the general US approach, although I have many issues with the way the US Congress has implemented IP laws.
I agree that the studio features could have had more vision, but I disagree that guitar hero is bad for the future of music. Sure, a lot of people are going to be playing plastic instruments. But some of those people are going to want more, and they are going to pick up real instruments. And these are people that otherwise would not have gone near a real instrument.
There will be a famous musician five or ten years from now who says "Guitar Hero inspired me to learn how to play guitar." And then he'll say "ka-ching" and collect a huge check.
I was going to mod you up, but I'll comment instead so people understand.
A big part of the problem with the H1B program is that the visas are tied to one employer. A foreigner comes over to work, finds out the job is crappy, and is stuck in the job. She can't find a better job with better pay or better hours. She either works to the end of the visa, or goes back to her country early.
A big improvement to the program would be to cut this tie. Employers would have to compete for H1B workers, just like they have to compete for American workers. This will raise the wages of H1B workers, which will make H1B workers *less* desirable over American workers.
There would be less H1Bs, and the ones that remained would be skilled workers whose skills are genuinely needed.
In summary, better treatment for H1B workers will lead to better wages and more jobs for American workers.
use Math, Science, and logic to draw conclusions.
And data. Don't forget data.
That's hyperbole, of course.
Using the same logic, you would have to say that liberals don't care about the past, and thus are incapable of learning from history.
Of course all the new apartments in NYC are luxury apartments. Anything built to be affordable will end up being rent controlled, at a huge loss to the landlord. Why take the risk? Either build luxury apartments or don't build at all.
Windows 2000 wasn't a consumer operating system. It was the successor to NT.
There was Windows ME, but that was really just 98 3rd edition.
It's too bad for the all the small private companies that have been investing in green vehicles. The government just gave the big guys $25 billion dollars to retrofit their plants to make "more efficient" vehicles. It's hard to compete against free government money. This waste will contribute to more problems in the future. Why make a risky bet on alternative energy? Just invest in the same old inefficient technologies, and then when it's way too late to switch over, the government will bail you out.
guitar hero: world tour for wii will have downloadable content.
The security must be pretty shoddy if the company doesn't want this report released.
Only problem is, if they don't match, how do you know which one was tampered with?
It's a good way to detect a problem, but you can't fix the problem once its detected, except by revoting.
I personally have no problem with black box voting machines, provided that they print out a human readable ballot, and the printed ballot is the only official ballot for the purpose of vote counting.
Open source was always a distraction from the real issue. I like open source, but we shouldn't use this issue to try to push open source. It just doesn't make sense. Open source doesn't guarantee security. If the computer is responsible for maintaining the vote total, there will be the possibility of mischief, whether the software is open source or not.
http://mises.org/story/3098
Is this the basis for the criticism of Republicans? I found it linked from the wikipedia article for the financial services modernization act.
Has austrian economics gone mainstream?
Not that regulations helped this time around since they were neutered by the Republicans
I keep hearing people say this, but I've never seen anyone point to any specific deregulation. Please enlighten me.
It seems to me that this whole mess was largely caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government sponsored enterprises. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/09/distorting-history.html
First sale doctrine. It's a basic consumer right. A book publisher can't tell you what you can do with a book after you have purchased it. Similarly, a video game publisher shouldn't be able to tell you what you can do with your video game after you have purchased it.
Sadly, as far as digital copyrighted works are concerned, the first sale doctrine went out the window with the digital millennium copyright act. Now content sellers can place "technological protection measures" on their products, and it is illegal to break them.
"We're not violating your patent. This is an implementation of our own patent." Then the shoe is on the other foot, and the patent troll must invalidate your patent.
A patent does not give you the right to implement an invention. A patent only gives you the right to exclude others from using your invention. If the invention in one patent covers an improvement over the invention of another patent, neither patent holder can utilize the invention without a license from the other. In this situation there is said to be "blocking patents."
It's true that patent applications have to be filed for an inventor... but a company that owns an invention is allowed to file a patent application on behalf of a *hostile* inventor. A non participating inventor is not going to stop a company that wants a patent.
The most obvious is that the drug company doesn't want to make it known that they're working on drug X. Not sure how that works, but you could imagine that they might have to patent it to keep others from using it, and then the clock on the patent starts before they actually get it working.
Except clinical trials are not required to attain patent protection. Any drug company with good patent practitioners is going to have a patent application filed *before* clinical trials. You can always abandon it later if the clinical trials don't work out. It's much cheaper to file and then abandon an application on a drug than to miss the opportunity to get a patent on a successful drug.