We NEED vulgar and profane words to express anger and other intense emotions.
no, we don't. this is such rubbish. it's as bad as people who allow 'crap' instead of 'shit'. they both mean the same thing,
and one is not better than the other in any usage. do you think that people that wear hats in
certain settings,like school, is somehow disrespectful? i bet you do.
i guess i mean that all this stuff is stupid.
i think a company should be allowed to gut a ps3, xbox 360, and nintendo wii, box them all together
with a graphical front end to select which system and sell it as the SUPERMEGAGAMEATRON2000.
good points here. i would like this case to resolve whether clauses like this are enforceable. if so, will some games in the future say, "only to run on nvidia brand hardware"
personally, i think the whole thing reeks of the same bs that created region-coding, false scarcity, etc. it is like the unnatural idea of "intellectual property" and it's different set of rules.
it is all about control. coming soon: ELLA (end listener license agreement) and EVLA (end viewer license agreement), where the content providers can flip some bit so it only works on their brand of hardware,
and if you buy that media and find a way to make it work elsewhere, you are the criminal. generic fm transmitter for your ipod in your car? should have bought the apple brand one, as the ELLA states that music bought from itunes can only be played/transmitted/stored on an apple brand product.
i always find it funny how people equate bravery with heroism. personally, i think heroism = bravery + positive results.
brave: running into burning orphanage with the pretense of saving orphans
hero: running into burning orphanage and rescuing some
brave, but not heroic: running into burning orphange, and...
a.) tripping, getting knocked out, and dieing with the orphans.
b.) seeing a wall of flame, getting scared, and running back out, empty-handed.
c.) etc.
that may be right, but i think it would be crossing the line to try and prevent someone[by someone, i mean an adult] else from having it.
fine, you don't like "high school massacre 2: graduation slay", but don't try and make it so i can't buy it. that's just being a dick. not that you were trying to ban anything, but that is the route most haters take.
Simple solution: make mandatory licensing a part of copyright. You want protection for what now seems like an eternity? Well, then you must make it available for licensing.
It's about time someone makes the smart play. The internet should have gotten rid of all traditional regions, zones, etc in the media markets years ago. Global network should equal global licensing, instead of bullshit maneuvers to raise the bottom line.
if its free, fine, but the minute they PAY for something, the first sale doctrine should apply.
it'd be like buying a soda in burger king and paying for a fancy cup-holder, then not being able to give the cup-holder to the homeless man, or more appropriately, another customer buying soda.
i don't get it. with everything becoming digital and the supply, nearly limitless, shouldn't the value of said objects be drastically declining? false scarcity is rubbish and harmful in the long run.
wtf are they gonna do when almost anything can be duped with the push of a button? we need to figure this out now before its too late, or we'll have to pay everytime we read/watch/listen.
i think copyrights are way too long to begin with. with the speed of technology, they should be as short as the original terms or shorter. i'd also like to see a standardized, mandated licensing program.
if you want your work protected, then anyone can pay a fee and use it. copyright, is, after all, a sort of 'social contract' between the creators and society. if they can keep changing the terms, why can't i?
i think it is analogous to copyright's original good intentions. you know, the monopolies being temporary to encourage growth, and the abuse that followed. i think both are quite flawed and no longer serve the interest of the public, the other party in these "social contracts".
i think he meant that the companies will put artificial restrictions on the technology so you can't use it however you want (i.e. fair use) even though the technology is more than capable of doing said task.
i hope for a day where a digital library will have everything a physical library has and more, all for the same cost of membership. i don't see how you can be for one and not the other. the truth is, when something can be replicated as fast as digital material, the value of said material does decrease very, very much. when we are able to replicate almost everything, the value(s) we currently apply to those things will be turned on its head. people better wrap their heads around that, because that is the way its headed. either that, or we're gonna pay for everything, every time we watch & listen (and eventually smell, taste, and touch).
so masturbation should just be relegated to the sidelines with no discussion whatsoever? should they also stop talking about pork consumption? where does it end? fuck it, sharia law for everyone? the parents bestowing these beliefs on said children do far more harm than a school saying that masturbation is ok to do, which is neither claiming it to be a right or good. not everything that is ok to do is a good thing btw.
is there any other pics beside from chron.com? i can't stand sites that use stupid, small images. it is rediculous, and so many news sites do that. small pictures are worse than no picture at all! 640px wide should be the minimum, and that's pushing it. it's 2009 for christ's sake! if it is gonna mess with the flow of your page, at least put in a larger-image-pop-up-viewer-thing!!
Microsoft should just close off Windows like all these other 'platforms'. Make people pay license fees to develop for it. Etc.
If people are against this idea, how can they be for company-run app stores, developer license fees for consoles(or closed consoles for that matter), and all of
the other rediculous acts going on in the tech world? It IS a very black and white issue.
p.s. hardware profitablilty should not factor in.
Slashdot Mirror
"simply a way for Microsoft to fight against it from ...inside..."
duh, microintelpro?
a tie is the noose that modern man hangs himself with
We NEED vulgar and profane words to express anger and other intense emotions.
no, we don't. this is such rubbish. it's as bad as people who allow 'crap' instead of 'shit'. they both mean the same thing, and one is not better than the other in any usage. do you think that people that wear hats in certain settings,like school, is somehow disrespectful? i bet you do.
i guess i mean that all this stuff is stupid.
i think a company should be allowed to gut a ps3, xbox 360, and nintendo wii, box them all together with a graphical front end to select which system and sell it as the SUPERMEGAGAMEATRON2000.
good points here. i would like this case to resolve whether clauses like this are enforceable. if so, will some games in the future say, "only to run on nvidia brand hardware"
personally, i think the whole thing reeks of the same bs that created region-coding, false scarcity, etc. it is like the unnatural idea of "intellectual property" and it's different set of rules.
it is all about control. coming soon: ELLA (end listener license agreement) and EVLA (end viewer license agreement), where the content providers can flip some bit so it only works on their brand of hardware,
and if you buy that media and find a way to make it work elsewhere, you are the criminal. generic fm transmitter for your ipod in your car? should have bought the apple brand one, as the ELLA states that music bought from itunes can only be played/transmitted/stored on an apple brand product.
maybe sony's movie division can make a eula so that all the blu-ray films made by them can only be played on products from it's electronics division.
i always find it funny how people equate bravery with heroism. personally, i think heroism = bravery + positive results.
brave: running into burning orphanage with the pretense of saving orphans
hero: running into burning orphanage and rescuing some
brave, but not heroic: running into burning orphange, and...
a.) tripping, getting knocked out, and dieing with the orphans.
b.) seeing a wall of flame, getting scared, and running back out, empty-handed.
c.) etc.
why should it matter either way? the issue should be that it is not real. end of story.
that may be right, but i think it would be crossing the line to try and prevent someone[by someone, i mean an adult] else from having it. fine, you don't like "high school massacre 2: graduation slay", but don't try and make it so i can't buy it. that's just being a dick. not that you were trying to ban anything, but that is the route most haters take.
Simple solution: make mandatory licensing a part of copyright. You want protection for what now seems like an eternity? Well, then you must make it available for licensing.
It's about time someone makes the smart play. The internet should have gotten rid of all traditional regions, zones, etc in the media markets years ago. Global network should equal global licensing, instead of bullshit maneuvers to raise the bottom line.
yet another reason for global licensing. hasn't the internet solved this bullshit yet?
led by mouse zedong?
if its free, fine, but the minute they PAY for something, the first sale doctrine should apply. it'd be like buying a soda in burger king and paying for a fancy cup-holder, then not being able to give the cup-holder to the homeless man, or more appropriately, another customer buying soda.
i don't get it. with everything becoming digital and the supply, nearly limitless, shouldn't the value of said objects be drastically declining? false scarcity is rubbish and harmful in the long run.
wtf are they gonna do when almost anything can be duped with the push of a button? we need to figure this out now before its too late, or we'll have to pay everytime we read/watch/listen.
i think copyrights are way too long to begin with. with the speed of technology, they should be as short as the original terms or shorter. i'd also like to see a standardized, mandated licensing program.
if you want your work protected, then anyone can pay a fee and use it. copyright, is, after all, a sort of 'social contract' between the creators and society. if they can keep changing the terms, why can't i?
i think it is analogous to copyright's original good intentions. you know, the monopolies being temporary to encourage growth, and the abuse that followed. i think both are quite flawed and no longer serve the interest of the public, the other party in these "social contracts".
i think he meant that the companies will put artificial restrictions on the technology so you can't use it however you want (i.e. fair use) even though the technology is more than capable of doing said task.
With all the talk about USB taxing the cpu, why don't we have a USB Processing Unit (UPU) somewhere in the mix?
i hope for a day where a digital library will have everything a physical library has and more, all for the same cost of membership.
i don't see how you can be for one and not the other.
the truth is, when something can be replicated as fast as digital material, the value of said material does decrease very, very much.
when we are able to replicate almost everything, the value(s) we currently apply to those things will be turned on its head.
people better wrap their heads around that, because that is the way its headed.
either that, or we're gonna pay for everything, every time we watch & listen (and eventually smell, taste, and touch).
how about taxing the churches instead and i'm on board
so masturbation should just be relegated to the sidelines with no discussion whatsoever? should they also stop talking about pork consumption? where does it end? fuck it, sharia law for everyone? the parents bestowing these beliefs on said children do far more harm than a school saying that masturbation is ok to do, which is neither claiming it to be a right or good. not everything that is ok to do is a good thing btw.
is there any other pics beside from chron.com? i can't stand sites that use stupid, small images. it is rediculous, and so many news sites do that. small pictures are worse than no picture at all! 640px wide should be the minimum, and that's pushing it. it's 2009 for christ's sake! if it is gonna mess with the flow of your page, at least put in a larger-image-pop-up-viewer-thing!!
giving someone a viable option with positive societal value is interfering? no one is going to force people to do it.
Microsoft should just close off Windows like all these other 'platforms'. Make people pay license fees to develop for it. Etc. If people are against this idea, how can they be for company-run app stores, developer license fees for consoles(or closed consoles for that matter), and all of the other rediculous acts going on in the tech world? It IS a very black and white issue. p.s. hardware profitablilty should not factor in.
don't forget the later addition of the built-in boot loader, plus the ability to patch older releases, so no disc swapping was needed.