At this point it really does not matter if it was a hoax or not (some weird tactic in the cold war propaganda), it has been unquestionably successful and profitable for the US. If you want to look further, I would say the rest of the world strongly benefited as well from the technology.
Well not weighing in on the hoax (it clearly was), I think the moon missions were quite profitable indeed if you look at the contractors involved. Not to mention whatever gains came from making the Soviets and Communism look stupid compared to good ol' Captalism and Freedom.
because Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.
Well, I don't know about Microsoft, but ol' Ronald McDonald was quite well known for his affection to some of his customers...
I don't think a lot of people are caring right now about the next 5-10 years, when they can only see a few months ahead with less than 2 weeks of savings left. I don't see things getting any better, and everyone I know is adapting to less and just trying to survive with little hope for a brighter future.
While I may be able to turn down a job at Zynga right now, I have to be honest. If things were to get much worse and I could not pay bills with no reliable work in sight, I might take a job at a place like Zynga. I would hold it out as long as possible and search for options, but still.....
I'm lucky to have a steady job at a nice place. I know some people who have not had steady work for a year or more. If you have kids you bet you would be lined up at Zynga for an offer of a decent paying job in such a situation.
That's assuming the developers are in the US. If they are outsourcing it to India, which is a pit, I don't blame those guys over there one bit. They have families to feed and 1000 other developers willing to take the work.
Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character
Just how far could they have strayed?
We are talking about a visual clue to a type of behavior. The wringing of the hands is very popular. A few others I can think of may be the western style villain playing with his mustache, or the exaggerated smile of the Grinch, or perhaps the head thrown back laughing. The last one could be misconstrued as mental instability without being a scoundrel though.
There are only so many ways to convey this type of information, in an appropriate time period and context, and I would argue that you should not be able to copyright someone wringing their hands. It's too fundamental to human communication to be allowed exclusivity.
I think copyrights have gone too far as it is and the last thing we need is precedent like this. To have such a thing would truly stifle innovation and raise the barrier to entry to high that only mega corporations could dare play the game.
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything I said. Here are the facts:
Do you?
NBC is a TV network, not a broadcaster. They are not using OUR spectrum.
Then right afterwards you clarified that their broadcast affiliates are doing so, some of them owned by NBC. My comments apply to those affiliates and the principle of private use of public spectrums.
NBC is sending SOME of it's Olympic coverage to it's broadcast affiliates. This is broadcast over the air, for free, just like every other TV broadcast.
I'm not into the Olympics, so I don't know the exact nature of what is being broadcast.
NBC owns OTHER, non-broadcast TV channels (CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, etc). These do not use our precious spectrum. They are not free, they are paid for, in part, by cable subscribers.
NBC is putting SOME of it's Olympic coverage on these other non-free channels.
Does not change any of my points...
cpu6502 is putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because NBC affiliates have broadcast licenses everything NBC does must be free.
Yes, and I agreed that anything that is OTA, must be free. Otherwise, NBC is not obligated.
I would like to know in what world does having a license to do something in one area mean that everything you do (even stuff not in that area) must be free?
I never agreed with that. All I did was separate the two. You keep saying "everything". It does not have to be everything, but the OTA stuff does.
You went on a rant about copying, etc, which has not been brought up anywhere.
It is relevant to the discussion about copyrighted content that is delivered OTA, and why you should not have any legal recourse to content delivered over it. You don't like it? Don't freaking put stuff out in public like that. There are plenty of other distribution channels, not using public spectrum, that can be monetized.
"if you have a license to use part of the spectrum, everything you do (including that not using any of the spectrum) must be free".
Uhhhh, yes.
All the content that is being delivered over that spectrum must be free. Meaning, you cannot attempt to charge fees for it, sue people into oblivion that have antennas, sue people that are recording it in their own homes on DVR's, etc. If you push content over that spectrum consider it a public performance in which you did not get paid. Obviously, they have reasons to do so, and it is called advertising dollars.
It's OUR spectrum. We should get something in return for allowing them to use it.
All the money The People have poured into this bullshit corporations and never get anything in return. Ok, we all can't have free Internet, but god dammit, at least put free Internet in schools, *really* rural areas, etc. Give something back to the communities in exchange for everything we gave them. Why should they get all of that for free? So their executives can have lives of luxury? I don't think so....
Third, "NBC" does not have a license to broadcast over the airwaves, their affiliated stations do (yes, in some markets the affiliates may be owned by NBC).
Ummm, okay. And?
Then NBC should know well ahead of time that the affiliate is delivering the content over public airwaves without direct control over, or compensation from the viewers. There would obviously be separate revenue sharing agreements between NBC and those affiliates so they can make money.
Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.
You imply that license was free. The People pay taxes, in several forms, to ostensibly support our infrastructures that allow us to be able to drive on the roads. Of course I am not obligated to provide free anything. I paid for it.
Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?
We never forced them into agreement that cost 1.1bn to carry anything. That was their choice that they made willingly. NBC is not obligated to provide OTA access. However, if they want those advertising dollars they better convince the advertisers somehow that eyeballs will be available. They could probably go over cable subscriptions instead.
That being said, once you do decide to provide OTA, you are logically forfeiting all rights to bitch and complain. I'm sorry, but if you are forcing anything across the airwaves, over my property, I have the rights to record and do whatever I want with the content, as long as I am not violating copyrights. Copyrights don't say anything about the obtaining of copyrighted material, only the dissemination.
It makes no sense. You have given it away for free already. Stop trying to create a totalitarian fascist state to control me in my own home because of a choice you made.
Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.
No, there is not a choice. NBC is the only option to see the Olympics on TV. Like you pointed out though, it is OTA, so I don't see why anybody should complain when NBC is giving it away for free OTA.
Who is being affected anyways? If you have a cable subscription you can see it, if you have OTA you can see it, if have neither you can still see it because it is highly likely you have become proficient at pirating television and spoofing your location with VPNs.
Since when it is an expectation to make hundreds of millions off a game?
How many Slashdotters would have turned down the chance to be involved in a small group of developers to make a game, for fun, that raked in just millions?
It's a ridiculous sense of entitlement to by crying about how many people may have not paid you, when you have made a very considerable standard of living with the people that have paid you. It's very much like playing basketball reasonably well and being bitter you are not getting paid NBA levels of money.
Angry Birds is:
1) Well written. Experienced very few critical bugs that took away from any enjoyment. 2) Well thought out game play. 3) Excellent graphics.
Not everybody can make Angry Birds, but don't sit there like a bitch complaining about piracy and the platform when your product is full of bugs, crashes, a poor excuse for motivating in-app purchases, paper thin plots, questionable game play dynamics, etc.
To make it clearer, stop trying to sell a gas station sandwich which is barely edible and then complain with a straight face why you are not as big as McDonald's and it must be everyone else's fault.
Most apps are crap that barely works, and that includes iOS and Android. Crap like that usually does not fly on a PC or a Mac.
The ones that are coded somewhat well, are barely even worth 99c. People are getting wise to that and don't want to spend a ton of money on something that gives them very little return.
If a developer really wants money then they need to deliver a truly working app with a lot of useful features. Angry Birds makes money because it is not only written well with few bugs, but is also an engaging game with more than just a few levels.
By engaging in a patent war and bullying other corporations into just paying the extortion fee to use their highly questionable claims on the technology involved in Android.
MS is not the only doing this either. The whole thing is disgusting.
On top of that Windows Phone 7/8 supports the fantastic developer tools that is Visual Studio. There is no better IDE around and I really wish I would have it on my OS X.
Surprised to see a macfag shilling for Microsoft.
That's offensive. Just because one uses Apple, does not mean they are gay. They are predominately metrosexual. There's a difference.
You are misusing the concept of fault tolerance. It implies the system could continue to work, despite the faults. Some may say our system is working, but it sure as hell is not working for the common man.
Ummm.. in all fairness the 2nd time around there were huge gaping holes in an unfinished Death Star and that was still protected by a huge energy shield. Not to mention a hidden fleet of Star Destroyers. If that Death Star had been finished you know it would not have contained any ridiculous vulnerabilities like that.
What took down the 2nd Death Star, more than anything else, was a bunch of furry little superstitious midgets with primitive weapons. Totally plausible.
That would be like a nuclear reactor being taken out by a paper clip.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, yes absolutely.
At this point it really does not matter if it was a hoax or not (some weird tactic in the cold war propaganda), it has been unquestionably successful and profitable for the US. If you want to look further, I would say the rest of the world strongly benefited as well from the technology.
Well not weighing in on the hoax (it clearly was), I think the moon missions were quite profitable indeed if you look at the contractors involved. Not to mention whatever gains came from making the Soviets and Communism look stupid compared to good ol' Captalism and Freedom.
I've been in line at the DMV. Does that count?
because Chick-Fil-A has a rather affectionate relationship with its customers. Hard to see the same thing happening at McDonalds, never mind Microsoft.
Well, I don't know about Microsoft, but ol' Ronald McDonald was quite well known for his affection to some of his customers...
you're starting to remind me of Ned Flanders.
have a beautiful god-given evening.
You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history. -- Adrian Cronauer, Good Morning Vietnam
Are you kidding? In this economy?
I don't think a lot of people are caring right now about the next 5-10 years, when they can only see a few months ahead with less than 2 weeks of savings left. I don't see things getting any better, and everyone I know is adapting to less and just trying to survive with little hope for a brighter future.
While I may be able to turn down a job at Zynga right now, I have to be honest. If things were to get much worse and I could not pay bills with no reliable work in sight, I might take a job at a place like Zynga. I would hold it out as long as possible and search for options, but still.....
I'm lucky to have a steady job at a nice place. I know some people who have not had steady work for a year or more. If you have kids you bet you would be lined up at Zynga for an offer of a decent paying job in such a situation.
That's assuming the developers are in the US. If they are outsourcing it to India, which is a pit, I don't blame those guys over there one bit. They have families to feed and 1000 other developers willing to take the work.
Sad, but true.
Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character
Just how far could they have strayed?
We are talking about a visual clue to a type of behavior. The wringing of the hands is very popular. A few others I can think of may be the western style villain playing with his mustache, or the exaggerated smile of the Grinch, or perhaps the head thrown back laughing. The last one could be misconstrued as mental instability without being a scoundrel though.
There are only so many ways to convey this type of information, in an appropriate time period and context, and I would argue that you should not be able to copyright someone wringing their hands. It's too fundamental to human communication to be allowed exclusivity.
I think copyrights have gone too far as it is and the last thing we need is precedent like this. To have such a thing would truly stifle innovation and raise the barrier to entry to high that only mega corporations could dare play the game.
I like that.
Since "one small piece of bunny cake" is quite arbitrary, it could just as easily be anything else. Also consider the axiom that knowledge is power.
This leads to the inescapable conclusion, according to your theory, that my penis is all-knowing and all-powerful.
Don't worry, we will always have the Japanese and Germans to be showing us how to push the envelope.....
I understand that India has a legitimate security need to be able to wiretap communications and so on.
No it doesn't. There is never a legitimate need to tear away freedoms in exchange for questionable gains in security. Ever.
Sorry to be pedantic, but we should never give any such behavior by a government any legitimacy at all.
"If that supermodel gives me a handjob, I'd gladly pay $100."
What's wrong with that statement? Granted, it is redundant and stating the obvious, but I can't disagree with it.
For the record, I was not flaming you. The spelling mistake was totally lost on me.
I wasn't sure if you were kidding or not, so I just posted the link to his Wikipedia page.
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything I said. Here are the facts:
Do you?
NBC is a TV network, not a broadcaster. They are not using OUR spectrum.
Then right afterwards you clarified that their broadcast affiliates are doing so, some of them owned by NBC. My comments apply to those affiliates and the principle of private use of public spectrums.
NBC is sending SOME of it's Olympic coverage to it's broadcast affiliates. This is broadcast over the air, for free, just like every other TV broadcast.
I'm not into the Olympics, so I don't know the exact nature of what is being broadcast.
NBC owns OTHER, non-broadcast TV channels (CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, etc). These do not use our precious spectrum. They are not free, they are paid for, in part, by cable subscribers.
NBC is putting SOME of it's Olympic coverage on these other non-free channels.
Does not change any of my points...
cpu6502 is putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because NBC affiliates have broadcast licenses everything NBC does must be free.
Yes, and I agreed that anything that is OTA, must be free. Otherwise, NBC is not obligated.
I would like to know in what world does having a license to do something in one area mean that everything you do (even stuff not in that area) must be free?
I never agreed with that. All I did was separate the two. You keep saying "everything". It does not have to be everything, but the OTA stuff does.
You went on a rant about copying, etc, which has not been brought up anywhere.
It is relevant to the discussion about copyrighted content that is delivered OTA, and why you should not have any legal recourse to content delivered over it. You don't like it? Don't freaking put stuff out in public like that. There are plenty of other distribution channels, not using public spectrum, that can be monetized.
I want to watch F1 races, without paying for some stupid channel that shows nascar races and other hill billy type sports.
So you are not a fan of the
"if you have a license to use part of the spectrum, everything you do (including that not using any of the spectrum) must be free".
Uhhhh, yes.
All the content that is being delivered over that spectrum must be free. Meaning, you cannot attempt to charge fees for it, sue people into oblivion that have antennas, sue people that are recording it in their own homes on DVR's, etc. If you push content over that spectrum consider it a public performance in which you did not get paid. Obviously, they have reasons to do so, and it is called advertising dollars.
It's OUR spectrum. We should get something in return for allowing them to use it.
All the money The People have poured into this bullshit corporations and never get anything in return. Ok, we all can't have free Internet, but god dammit, at least put free Internet in schools, *really* rural areas, etc. Give something back to the communities in exchange for everything we gave them. Why should they get all of that for free? So their executives can have lives of luxury? I don't think so....
Third, "NBC" does not have a license to broadcast over the airwaves, their affiliated stations do (yes, in some markets the affiliates may be owned by NBC).
Ummm, okay. And?
Then NBC should know well ahead of time that the affiliate is delivering the content over public airwaves without direct control over, or compensation from the viewers. There would obviously be separate revenue sharing agreements between NBC and those affiliates so they can make money.
Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.
You imply that license was free. The People pay taxes, in several forms, to ostensibly support our infrastructures that allow us to be able to drive on the roads. Of course I am not obligated to provide free anything. I paid for it.
Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?
We never forced them into agreement that cost 1.1bn to carry anything. That was their choice that they made willingly. NBC is not obligated to provide OTA access. However, if they want those advertising dollars they better convince the advertisers somehow that eyeballs will be available. They could probably go over cable subscriptions instead.
That being said, once you do decide to provide OTA, you are logically forfeiting all rights to bitch and complain. I'm sorry, but if you are forcing anything across the airwaves, over my property, I have the rights to record and do whatever I want with the content, as long as I am not violating copyrights. Copyrights don't say anything about the obtaining of copyrighted material, only the dissemination.
It makes no sense. You have given it away for free already. Stop trying to create a totalitarian fascist state to control me in my own home because of a choice you made.
Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.
No, there is not a choice. NBC is the only option to see the Olympics on TV. Like you pointed out though, it is OTA, so I don't see why anybody should complain when NBC is giving it away for free OTA.
Who is being affected anyways? If you have a cable subscription you can see it, if you have OTA you can see it, if have neither you can still see it because it is highly likely you have become proficient at pirating television and spoofing your location with VPNs.
I think that can be fixed and the developer SDK should allow to choose between modes.
Yeah, it would make strafing pretty difficult. More than likely a simple keypress will change how that works in game.
I paid for it. The PC version.
Since when it is an expectation to make hundreds of millions off a game?
How many Slashdotters would have turned down the chance to be involved in a small group of developers to make a game, for fun, that raked in just millions?
It's a ridiculous sense of entitlement to by crying about how many people may have not paid you, when you have made a very considerable standard of living with the people that have paid you. It's very much like playing basketball reasonably well and being bitter you are not getting paid NBA levels of money.
Angry Birds is:
1) Well written. Experienced very few critical bugs that took away from any enjoyment.
2) Well thought out game play.
3) Excellent graphics.
Not everybody can make Angry Birds, but don't sit there like a bitch complaining about piracy and the platform when your product is full of bugs, crashes, a poor excuse for motivating in-app purchases, paper thin plots, questionable game play dynamics, etc.
To make it clearer, stop trying to sell a gas station sandwich which is barely edible and then complain with a straight face why you are not as big as McDonald's and it must be everyone else's fault.
That's my point.
Mod this up.
Most apps are crap that barely works, and that includes iOS and Android. Crap like that usually does not fly on a PC or a Mac.
The ones that are coded somewhat well, are barely even worth 99c. People are getting wise to that and don't want to spend a ton of money on something that gives them very little return.
If a developer really wants money then they need to deliver a truly working app with a lot of useful features. Angry Birds makes money because it is not only written well with few bugs, but is also an engaging game with more than just a few levels.
Make something really good and you will get paid.
How does Microsoft make money off of Android?
By engaging in a patent war and bullying other corporations into just paying the extortion fee to use their highly questionable claims on the technology involved in Android.
MS is not the only doing this either. The whole thing is disgusting.
On top of that Windows Phone 7/8 supports the fantastic developer tools that is Visual Studio. There is no better IDE around and I really wish I would have it on my OS X.
Surprised to see a macfag shilling for Microsoft.
That's offensive. Just because one uses Apple, does not mean they are gay. They are predominately metrosexual. There's a difference.
You are misusing the concept of fault tolerance. It implies the system could continue to work, despite the faults. Some may say our system is working, but it sure as hell is not working for the common man.
Oh wait, are we using arguments from a made up fantasy scifi movie to justify reasoning in a real world conversation? Thought so... just checking.
Ahhh, the life of the party just arrived. This is Slashdot, so yes we are.
In any case, it is no more or less valid than of the bullshit arguments and logic that our legislators are using.
No... I did not. I kept misspelling it even after I linked to the wikipedia page.
Yeah...... I get it now.
Ummm.. in all fairness the 2nd time around there were huge gaping holes in an unfinished Death Star and that was still protected by a huge energy shield. Not to mention a hidden fleet of Star Destroyers. If that Death Star had been finished you know it would not have contained any ridiculous vulnerabilities like that.
What took down the 2nd Death Star, more than anything else, was a bunch of furry little superstitious midgets with primitive weapons. Totally plausible.
That would be like a nuclear reactor being taken out by a paper clip.
Really?
Leonard Nimoy