Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.
Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the U.S. Code, section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the copyright law are met.
For information on how to register, see the reverse side of this letter. For further information on copyright, deposit requirements, and registration procedures, see Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Deposit requirements depend on whether the work has been published at the time of registration:
* If the work is unpublished, one complete copy
* If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies of the best edition
* If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies as first published If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy of the work as first published
* If the work is a contribution to a collective work and was published after January 1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective work or a photocopy of the contribution itself as it was published in the collective work
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.
To paraphrase my AC post elsewhere, let the employer choose if they want to keep you. If they want unhappy employees they can make that choice.
It doesn't give the employer power over you. You can choose to continue working there or quit. If you work there without complaining, that's when you give the company power over you. If you complain, or quit, or do anything else other than simply follow orders, you are taking charge. Giving an ultimatum gives the employer warning that they can choose, while quitting is kind of a passive-aggressive way of dealing with it. Quitting just allows management to say it was a personality conflict, and the new guy will be fine, so no need to change things. High numbers of quitters (attrition) will raise eyebrows, but not until long after you're gone.
Given the above, the only reasonable response is an ultimatum. You need to change things, so let me know if you're going to, or if I'm going to have to leave.
The only down side is giving warning like this gives them a heads up to avoid having you on the layoff list, because contesting unemployment benefits is a lot easier with someone who doesn't want to work there anyway. So it isn't a bargaining chip - it's potentially a life-changing declaration.
In the USA yes it's against the law. You can back up your own stuff, but you can't have someone else back up their stuff and give you a copy.
If you have a NES rom sitting on your desk, downloading it is copyright infringement, while paying for a reader and doing it yourself is perfectly legal. Further, if you have a FAMICOM, backing up the BIOS is *not* legal at all - it falls under the warranty and is considered part of the physical machine. You can no more back up the BIOS than you can the disk drive. If it's broken you can try to fix it, but you can't back it up.
The headline here "Privacy worries are for wrongdoers" seems interpreted, not a quote. Only miscreants worry about net privacy is an editorializing statement, which is attributed to Schmidt but never quoted nor referenced. These are the things we come to expect from El Reg.
I don't think it will change anything. He's right, after all - the citizens are subject to the laws of the land, and he was merely pointing this out. There's not much Google can do to help, given their business model. If they throw away search data, there goes Google Trends. They also throw away great test sample data to compare search engine updates - real queries by real people. I suspect this was the reason for his quote, more than anything. For that reason, I'll paraphrase.
"Our business model requires that we retain certain data for internal purposes, and if you happen to live in a place where those searches are within asking distance by your authorities, that data could be turned over to law enforcement."
Also, as a publically traded company, the CEO really should avoid saying things like "Break all the laws you want, we got your back." Even if he wanted to, he shouldn't.
Now let's turn this around a little. If I want to search for growing illegal drugs or ways to harm someone, no one is going to come knocking down my door because I put a search into google. Or any other provider for that matter. If I'm suspected of doing something, the searches become important and might be requested. At that point he's dead-on. If you're worried about your privacy, maybe you shouldn't be broadcasting what you're doing to places like google, myspace, facebook, or wherever else people do things these days.
What people forget, every single time, is that people are different. Coding practices differ depending on your language, and your coding team's abilities.
I saw lots of code during peer review that was just terrible - looping to fill a DataTable from a DataReader, applying transformations for a single column. My code would have applied a function to the Template, so you let the Template iterate and call your function for the translation.
ASP.NET does not make it easy to do such things, and there are so many ways to do it, and so many code examples which recommend one way and some recommend another. And the documentation is terse - it does not explain what's happening.
Do you expect me to use Reflector to figure out how the language works when I have a line item due Monday? No, then I will do a code search, copy and paste, and when I find a different solution I'll have two different methods in the code, cos I'm not going to back-port anything that works and has been tested.
Ultimately, you need to agree on something that is readable by everyone who might read it (including support staff if applicable). If looping for data transformations is more clear, go with that. I decided to bite my tongue and allow code like that if there existed an example of its usage (without being a recommendation against using it of course). It is more clear that way, but lots of overhead. So you need to have a body of coders who understand the language completely and know which design patterns to choose.
Do you fill an ALLOW list of properties from an initialized array so that someone can't just go around changing it, or load it from a config file so someone can just go around changing it? Do your array functions check the lower and upper bound, or just go from 0 to <=.Length?
My point, if I have one, is to choose an appropriate language, and make sure your people know how to use it. Then they will code appropriately and it will be understandable. Any time you move to a different language, or a different version of the same language, there's a learning curve and the first code out the door will have problems. Do you rewrite it later? Or do you invest time up front to understand the language features and *recommended* usage? I'm saying spend the time up front. You're not being paid to learn the language as you go - you're being paid to know it. And if the job requirements change, management has to give you time to make sur eyou know the new stuff, so you can do your ACTUAL job, which is to create readable output.
Possession means you don't have to prove they owner took the pictures. Before possession was illegal, production certainly was. Too many cases went by where the possessor claimed he didn't do it, he just downloaded it from somewhere else. Where else? How do I know, it could be any of 1000 sites I've been to. Case dismissed.
Possession is now illegal, which means they don't have to prove production. They just assume that if you have it, you probably did take them yourself, or would if you had the chance.
Same reason why a pound of marijuana is typically intent to distribute - even if you're taking it for chemotherapy pain and nausea and it was easier to buy by the pound. That way they don't have to catch you selling it, just tell a jury there's no way one person can consume it before it "goes bad" so the only thing left is intent to sell.
These, and zero tolerance type laws, simplify the executive and prosecutorial process so you don't have to waste time proving things - you have evidence and a law that says the evidence means intent, or production, and that carries a minimum sentence. All they have to do now is figure out who's holding something illegal and the prison population increases - no muss, no fuss.
And as someone else pointed out, no common sense required. Which means no one is responsible. The system just operates and we are just cogs. Brazil, The Wall, 1984, take your pick.
Sell it at different prices to different markets, that way everyone will pay what they consider it worth. they intentionally reduce prices, so you're still paying the asking price.
A new release at $20 typically will have, day 1: - people buying for face value - employee discounts - a special edition at $30 or more promised - a retailer coupon to buy a movie, get another for some percent off - a promotion at another retailer pushing that movie at a discounted price as a loss leader - different prices (or different availability) in different geopolitical regions - a higher price at the trendier stores near "high cost of living" type areas
Followed by any number of: - official price drops - used sales - rentals - more price drops - buy 1 get 1 free retailer sales - more coupons
You can see where I'm going with this. They alter prices enough so that the target market self-differentiates to pay what they think it's worth. The customer balances their need for instant gratification against their wallet and decides when is the right time to buy.
If they give it away in any form (free, free with purchase, bundled with something else) then you are still following their business model and making an effective purchase. The moment you set the terms, when they are not yours to set, that is usually a violation of law.
You are selling your house, I talk you down $30,000 from your asking price. I write you a check for $30,000 less than what we agreed upon. You complain, but my response is that you seemed fine when I stole the first $30,000 from you, so history shows you're fine with being $30k short. So I shorted you. Would you tell me you see my point?
No you wouldn't, so quit being a dumbass on the internet.
Standard practice for getting out of your first ticket is to request a continuance because you recently discovered that the speedometer might not be accurate, so you need that tested and also would like details of the calibration for the radar device on the day it was used. Most likely they won't want to try to reschedule and will just dismiss, you owe court costs.
If they do reschedule, you get one try to have the speedometer tested, to prove you were under the limit as your car informed you that you were. Depending on the results, and the officer retaining the calibration data, you have a good chance of it being thrown out, you still owe court costs.
Off topic I know, but since ignorance of the law is no defense, you might as well become as familiar with the court system as you can.
IANAL, and your local laws will vary. You could check prior court appearance logs to see if this has been attempted before and how well it went over for that judge.
Gameplay is something we haven't figured out for non-handicapped players. My gf was complaining about a game, all movement is controlled by using the mouse. Move it forward to walk, move sideways to turn, restore to where it was to stop turning.
If you're disabled and would rather use keyboards, it's not an option in this game. If you're not disabled, it's still not an option.
Ensuring all controls are programmable would go a long way to helping everyone, not just the disabled (or just my gf, which would improve my standard of living).
Early in the process, someone decides the game should be controlled this way, and it affects a lot of other decisions. You can't make a WII game that suddenly requires a keyboard to solve a puzzle, or switch weapons fast enough to defeat a boss, so the gameplay sits on those decisions.
Is it possible to lock onto a target and walk around? Or do you omit locking and strafe instead, making the user strafe and rotate simultaneously to avoid being hit while remaining on target? Are the fire and strafe/lock buttons ones you can hold at the same time (preferably different hands) or do you have to hold both the triangle and x buttons while pushing L2? These things need to be abstracted away so anyone can play any game with any input device. A NES controller with USB hack on the end, or mind reading, or voice, or keyboard, or mouse plus anything else, should be equally possible. Not equally successful as I've pointed out, but possible.
If one particular board or puzzle requires certain faculties, that should be clearly labeled (parkinson's might cause problems playing because the aiming system sucks, blindness might leave out details because it's supposed to be a surprise reveal but we didn't include subtitles because no one's talking).
Even better would be to have it solved, and point out all of the wrong-headed approaches taken by earlier attempts. Everything you state will be preserved, except the ingenuity will be enhanced. 100 years is a long time to look at a problem, especially when solving it requires knowledge of how people worked centuries before. Being able to solve that is an incredible testament to ingenuity, especially with a fresh approach like this from a non-expert.
If this remains unsolved, we can point to it and say we don't know everything. If it is solved, we get to wonder what else is out there that we don't know that we don't know, which to me is even more interesting.
You're debunking a preliminary report from someone who admits they're not familiar with the subject matter? And clearly has not devoted enough time to completely decode it? And as evidence, pointing out that lots of people have tried and failed. And your conclusion is that this person is wasting her time?
Then let them waste it. And let the piles of like minded people follow up on it wasting their time in the process.
I've seen a number of close-minded posts on the internet, but this one takes the cake. Let's just shut down the LHC, because we're just wasting our time there, yes? All theoretical physics should stop too. We're all going to die eventually, so why not just meet downtown tonight, have a celebration that will go down in history (which will have to be pre-written of course) and then off ourselves and get it over with?
Where's your sense of adventure, or at least some curiosity?
You apparently have money to spend. The people I know who don't pay for their OS (Microsoft or not) consider $100 to be more like 10 nights out, and that doesn't balance. Fortune 500 companies typically lease hardware with provided operating systems, so the cost of the OS is almost irrelevant compared to the lease payment and support options.
I buy a computer, it has to have an operating system, then I load the applications I want to. The OS is supposed to be transparent, giving you access to the applications you use. If Apple and MS want to spend money making things flashy, that's their decision and it inflates the cost of the product. People rebel against high prices by not purchasing it - in the case of a digital product you can avoid paying instead of doing without. It's up to OS developers if they want to continue being flashy, or cut costs to reduce product costs.
I would expect the OS itself to be valued at whatever price an OEM pays for it - typically estimated at $30 according to the recent Windows EULA refund requests, but down to $6 with recent reports. The difference at that point is support - OEMs get a good deal because they support the customer directly, and escalate Microsoft issues to Microsoft. Buying direct from Microsoft means Microsoft supports as much as they can, then redirects you to the hardware support if needed. With all the available PC configurations, this can be quite complicated. Even OEM support with all of their configurations and user add-ons is hectic, I can't imagine having to support any random collection of cobbled together hardware from large and small OEMs, and homebuilt systems. But that's what they have to do, to a certain point.
What I would like to see is the actual value ($30 as previously discussed) plus support options. Bug reports are free, basic installation and how-to adds $20, bundle whatever else to reach the $100+ model. Ultimate version or whatever else should be a support pack like they used to do, a separate purchase instead of a separate SKU. That would make testing easier anyway, since yu don't have to compile and test the whole OS. Point is, I don't want to pay MS for support, only for the software. I support the OS myself other than fixing bugs, which I sometimes even do anyway. If you want additional features, pay for it. If you want support, pay for it.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this area is bundling. All features, all support, everything is included in the direct-to-consumer price. Unbundle and let people have the parts they want.
Yeah, but you need to look at the bright side of SOX for us (educated security geeks). When someone wants to do something really dumb like put a web app into production with no logging and no security, you can just tell them to fuck off, because of SOX. Also, if you're a security consultant with half a brain and know how to setup auditing on *nix related systems you can make a lot of money consulting.
SOX is worth it just for being able to tell a stupid developer that he can't do something that puts the security of my systems in jeopardy.
Chances are someone got into a situation and this was added as a result. "It wasn't spam. Might have been off topic, but it wasn't spam." Pow, new regulation they can enforce. There's a guy somewhere who knows *exactly* why this was added.
Like Dr. Pepper has a warning to not aim at friends when opening, or McDonald's warning that hot coffee might be hot.
It's more likely this is a scare tactic, making people wary of downloading emulators because they might be illegal. "I heard Nintendo will sue you for using an emulator, just like the RIAA/MPAA are doing..." and disinformation spreads like wildfire.
Famicom used to have kiosks that you could bring in your disks and write a new or replacement game on your physical disk. If something happens to the data on your disk, you can get the game back without having to pay full price. That was fair.
If you break the disk, it's no different from breaking anything else tangible - you want it replaced, you buy another or fix it yourself. If you scratch a game DVD, that seems like a user-damaged product.
At that point, you can ask a lawyer to ask the company whether they sold you a tangible object or a license to play. If they sold a tangible object, you can do whatever you want with it, including decompile, reverse engineer, back up (but not copy because that's a copyright violation same as photocopying a book for a friend, and for example only whole-disk copying would be allowed, no decrypting or selecting streams or re-encoding as an example). If they sold a license, the tangible medium doesn't matter and while your license is valid they should provide a replacement. The key is to ask this in a legal setting so they can't give you the runaround. And you should be talking to someone who can legally represent the company, not a customer service rep who can be scapegoated out for failure to follow process or something.
Like the JPEG library or zip or WWW client/browser, there is a reference implementation so you can test your implementation and ensure compatibility.
That part makes sense, including a reference implementation. I'm not sure about this part:
You can use that diagram in a patent application, in which case the diagram cannot be covered under copyright.
That makes sense, in a way, but you're not giving a complete 3D model that someone can use. The diagram is illustrative, to highlight and clarify the invention. A picture being worth a thousand words, it helps to draw something. So you provide pseudocode, which if the above quote is true, would not be copyrightable.
If you wish to include a working reference implementation, with the source under whatever license you wish, that's fine. So we have the patented algorithm described in pseudocode, which cannot be implemented by anyone else because of the patent. Same problem as the GP post, the algorithm is patented. What's the point of having a patent if someone else can just write it in another language to prove it's not a copy of the original code?
Pacifist is not quite the right word. We have a good enough life that people don't want to take a risk.
Riots and looting don't happen in affluent neighborhoods, or at least not by affluent people. Someone with a good job, nice benefits, a family, expensive possessions is not likely to throw a TV through a store window just to express outrage.
It's like dropping a $100 bill down the sewer pipe. If you don't have a lot of money, you might dedicate the rest of your day to getting that back. If it's just one of 50 you have on you, you might just figure it's not worth the effort.
And that's where the USA standards of living are right now - for almost everything, it's not worth the effort. Especially when we have state laws which take effect, they don't (directly) affect people in the 49 other states so why bother complaining... when people get to the point that they care, it's usually because they are desperate. Not because they suddenly develop a conscience or philosophy or a different world view.
MS thought they were being safe, like replacing single quotes with double before making an INSERT statement for a database, or removing less-than or greater than characters to prevent someone embedding <script> tags everywhere.
The feature works by rewriting vulnerable pages using a technique known as output encoding so that harmful characters and values are replaced with safer ones
Someone is pre-formatting the data so that when it is re-written, it becomes dangerous. In other words, this is like EVERY OTHER VULNERABILITY EVER. Someone makes a feature, doesn't think it through completely, and either leaves a hole, bypass, or unintended consequence.
The perception that IE is lagging behind comes from IE lagging behind. Not having any updates for year after year, and playing catch-up and copying features.
They have repeatedly stated they are not interested in dog-and-pony show tricks like ACID tests, instead focusing on what people use and what would make things easier for developers.
While this would make sense for an isolated company with an isolated product, they have to remember that their engine should render pages that were made by a non-microsoft product according to standards instead of by reading microsoft documentation. Microsoft is probably testing against their own test cases nightly, and having other people bother them about standards compliance would distract from their mission, whatever that is.
Again - their goal is internal compliance, and offering nightly builds externally does nothing to meet that. As long as that continues, you will have no nightlies combined with perception of lagging behind. They are intertwined.
If I can restate: The fact that you can embed COM objects in the latest version of Silverlight means that someone with Windows experience will decide it's easier to do it the COM way, and since 96% of users have it installed and it will decrease development time, let's do it. Everyone agree? Good, go. Thank goodness Microsoft made it so easy for us to reuse our old code, which happens to be one of the performance objectives I have to meet - increase code reuse. Plus our testing cycle is smaller since we don't have to unit or integration test the cOM portions - they are already working. Thanks, Steve!
Portability is a constraint you have to commit to, and it's easier not to.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
To paraphrase my AC post elsewhere, let the employer choose if they want to keep you. If they want unhappy employees they can make that choice.
It doesn't give the employer power over you. You can choose to continue working there or quit. If you work there without complaining, that's when you give the company power over you. If you complain, or quit, or do anything else other than simply follow orders, you are taking charge. Giving an ultimatum gives the employer warning that they can choose, while quitting is kind of a passive-aggressive way of dealing with it. Quitting just allows management to say it was a personality conflict, and the new guy will be fine, so no need to change things. High numbers of quitters (attrition) will raise eyebrows, but not until long after you're gone.
Given the above, the only reasonable response is an ultimatum. You need to change things, so let me know if you're going to, or if I'm going to have to leave.
The only down side is giving warning like this gives them a heads up to avoid having you on the layoff list, because contesting unemployment benefits is a lot easier with someone who doesn't want to work there anyway. So it isn't a bargaining chip - it's potentially a life-changing declaration.
In the USA yes it's against the law. You can back up your own stuff, but you can't have someone else back up their stuff and give you a copy.
If you have a NES rom sitting on your desk, downloading it is copyright infringement, while paying for a reader and doing it yourself is perfectly legal. Further, if you have a FAMICOM, backing up the BIOS is *not* legal at all - it falls under the warranty and is considered part of the physical machine. You can no more back up the BIOS than you can the disk drive. If it's broken you can try to fix it, but you can't back it up.
The headline here "Privacy worries are for wrongdoers" seems interpreted, not a quote. Only miscreants worry about net privacy is an editorializing statement, which is attributed to Schmidt but never quoted nor referenced. These are the things we come to expect from El Reg.
I don't think it will change anything. He's right, after all - the citizens are subject to the laws of the land, and he was merely pointing this out. There's not much Google can do to help, given their business model. If they throw away search data, there goes Google Trends. They also throw away great test sample data to compare search engine updates - real queries by real people. I suspect this was the reason for his quote, more than anything. For that reason, I'll paraphrase.
"Our business model requires that we retain certain data for internal purposes, and if you happen to live in a place where those searches are within asking distance by your authorities, that data could be turned over to law enforcement."
Also, as a publically traded company, the CEO really should avoid saying things like "Break all the laws you want, we got your back." Even if he wanted to, he shouldn't.
Now let's turn this around a little. If I want to search for growing illegal drugs or ways to harm someone, no one is going to come knocking down my door because I put a search into google. Or any other provider for that matter. If I'm suspected of doing something, the searches become important and might be requested. At that point he's dead-on. If you're worried about your privacy, maybe you shouldn't be broadcasting what you're doing to places like google, myspace, facebook, or wherever else people do things these days.
What people forget, every single time, is that people are different. Coding practices differ depending on your language, and your coding team's abilities.
I saw lots of code during peer review that was just terrible - looping to fill a DataTable from a DataReader, applying transformations for a single column. My code would have applied a function to the Template, so you let the Template iterate and call your function for the translation.
ASP.NET does not make it easy to do such things, and there are so many ways to do it, and so many code examples which recommend one way and some recommend another. And the documentation is terse - it does not explain what's happening.
Do you expect me to use Reflector to figure out how the language works when I have a line item due Monday? No, then I will do a code search, copy and paste, and when I find a different solution I'll have two different methods in the code, cos I'm not going to back-port anything that works and has been tested.
Ultimately, you need to agree on something that is readable by everyone who might read it (including support staff if applicable). If looping for data transformations is more clear, go with that. I decided to bite my tongue and allow code like that if there existed an example of its usage (without being a recommendation against using it of course). It is more clear that way, but lots of overhead. So you need to have a body of coders who understand the language completely and know which design patterns to choose.
Do you fill an ALLOW list of properties from an initialized array so that someone can't just go around changing it, or load it from a config file so someone can just go around changing it? Do your array functions check the lower and upper bound, or just go from 0 to <= .Length?
My point, if I have one, is to choose an appropriate language, and make sure your people know how to use it. Then they will code appropriately and it will be understandable. Any time you move to a different language, or a different version of the same language, there's a learning curve and the first code out the door will have problems. Do you rewrite it later? Or do you invest time up front to understand the language features and *recommended* usage? I'm saying spend the time up front. You're not being paid to learn the language as you go - you're being paid to know it. And if the job requirements change, management has to give you time to make sur eyou know the new stuff, so you can do your ACTUAL job, which is to create readable output.
Possession means you don't have to prove they owner took the pictures. Before possession was illegal, production certainly was. Too many cases went by where the possessor claimed he didn't do it, he just downloaded it from somewhere else. Where else? How do I know, it could be any of 1000 sites I've been to. Case dismissed.
Possession is now illegal, which means they don't have to prove production. They just assume that if you have it, you probably did take them yourself, or would if you had the chance.
Same reason why a pound of marijuana is typically intent to distribute - even if you're taking it for chemotherapy pain and nausea and it was easier to buy by the pound. That way they don't have to catch you selling it, just tell a jury there's no way one person can consume it before it "goes bad" so the only thing left is intent to sell.
These, and zero tolerance type laws, simplify the executive and prosecutorial process so you don't have to waste time proving things - you have evidence and a law that says the evidence means intent, or production, and that carries a minimum sentence. All they have to do now is figure out who's holding something illegal and the prison population increases - no muss, no fuss.
And as someone else pointed out, no common sense required. Which means no one is responsible. The system just operates and we are just cogs. Brazil, The Wall, 1984, take your pick.
Sell it at different prices to different markets, that way everyone will pay what they consider it worth. they intentionally reduce prices, so you're still paying the asking price.
A new release at $20 typically will have, day 1:
- people buying for face value
- employee discounts
- a special edition at $30 or more promised
- a retailer coupon to buy a movie, get another for some percent off
- a promotion at another retailer pushing that movie at a discounted price as a loss leader
- different prices (or different availability) in different geopolitical regions
- a higher price at the trendier stores near "high cost of living" type areas
Followed by any number of:
- official price drops
- used sales
- rentals
- more price drops
- buy 1 get 1 free retailer sales
- more coupons
You can see where I'm going with this. They alter prices enough so that the target market self-differentiates to pay what they think it's worth. The customer balances their need for instant gratification against their wallet and decides when is the right time to buy.
If they give it away in any form (free, free with purchase, bundled with something else) then you are still following their business model and making an effective purchase. The moment you set the terms, when they are not yours to set, that is usually a violation of law.
You are selling your house, I talk you down $30,000 from your asking price. I write you a check for $30,000 less than what we agreed upon. You complain, but my response is that you seemed fine when I stole the first $30,000 from you, so history shows you're fine with being $30k short. So I shorted you. Would you tell me you see my point?
No you wouldn't, so quit being a dumbass on the internet.
Standard practice for getting out of your first ticket is to request a continuance because you recently discovered that the speedometer might not be accurate, so you need that tested and also would like details of the calibration for the radar device on the day it was used. Most likely they won't want to try to reschedule and will just dismiss, you owe court costs.
If they do reschedule, you get one try to have the speedometer tested, to prove you were under the limit as your car informed you that you were. Depending on the results, and the officer retaining the calibration data, you have a good chance of it being thrown out, you still owe court costs.
Off topic I know, but since ignorance of the law is no defense, you might as well become as familiar with the court system as you can.
IANAL, and your local laws will vary. You could check prior court appearance logs to see if this has been attempted before and how well it went over for that judge.
Gameplay is something we haven't figured out for non-handicapped players. My gf was complaining about a game, all movement is controlled by using the mouse. Move it forward to walk, move sideways to turn, restore to where it was to stop turning.
If you're disabled and would rather use keyboards, it's not an option in this game. If you're not disabled, it's still not an option.
Ensuring all controls are programmable would go a long way to helping everyone, not just the disabled (or just my gf, which would improve my standard of living).
Early in the process, someone decides the game should be controlled this way, and it affects a lot of other decisions. You can't make a WII game that suddenly requires a keyboard to solve a puzzle, or switch weapons fast enough to defeat a boss, so the gameplay sits on those decisions.
Is it possible to lock onto a target and walk around? Or do you omit locking and strafe instead, making the user strafe and rotate simultaneously to avoid being hit while remaining on target? Are the fire and strafe/lock buttons ones you can hold at the same time (preferably different hands) or do you have to hold both the triangle and x buttons while pushing L2? These things need to be abstracted away so anyone can play any game with any input device. A NES controller with USB hack on the end, or mind reading, or voice, or keyboard, or mouse plus anything else, should be equally possible. Not equally successful as I've pointed out, but possible.
If one particular board or puzzle requires certain faculties, that should be clearly labeled (parkinson's might cause problems playing because the aiming system sucks, blindness might leave out details because it's supposed to be a surprise reveal but we didn't include subtitles because no one's talking).
Even better would be to have it solved, and point out all of the wrong-headed approaches taken by earlier attempts. Everything you state will be preserved, except the ingenuity will be enhanced. 100 years is a long time to look at a problem, especially when solving it requires knowledge of how people worked centuries before. Being able to solve that is an incredible testament to ingenuity, especially with a fresh approach like this from a non-expert.
If this remains unsolved, we can point to it and say we don't know everything. If it is solved, we get to wonder what else is out there that we don't know that we don't know, which to me is even more interesting.
You're debunking a preliminary report from someone who admits they're not familiar with the subject matter? And clearly has not devoted enough time to completely decode it? And as evidence, pointing out that lots of people have tried and failed. And your conclusion is that this person is wasting her time?
Then let them waste it. And let the piles of like minded people follow up on it wasting their time in the process.
I've seen a number of close-minded posts on the internet, but this one takes the cake. Let's just shut down the LHC, because we're just wasting our time there, yes? All theoretical physics should stop too. We're all going to die eventually, so why not just meet downtown tonight, have a celebration that will go down in history (which will have to be pre-written of course) and then off ourselves and get it over with?
Where's your sense of adventure, or at least some curiosity?
You apparently have money to spend. The people I know who don't pay for their OS (Microsoft or not) consider $100 to be more like 10 nights out, and that doesn't balance. Fortune 500 companies typically lease hardware with provided operating systems, so the cost of the OS is almost irrelevant compared to the lease payment and support options.
I buy a computer, it has to have an operating system, then I load the applications I want to. The OS is supposed to be transparent, giving you access to the applications you use. If Apple and MS want to spend money making things flashy, that's their decision and it inflates the cost of the product. People rebel against high prices by not purchasing it - in the case of a digital product you can avoid paying instead of doing without. It's up to OS developers if they want to continue being flashy, or cut costs to reduce product costs.
I would expect the OS itself to be valued at whatever price an OEM pays for it - typically estimated at $30 according to the recent Windows EULA refund requests, but down to $6 with recent reports. The difference at that point is support - OEMs get a good deal because they support the customer directly, and escalate Microsoft issues to Microsoft. Buying direct from Microsoft means Microsoft supports as much as they can, then redirects you to the hardware support if needed. With all the available PC configurations, this can be quite complicated. Even OEM support with all of their configurations and user add-ons is hectic, I can't imagine having to support any random collection of cobbled together hardware from large and small OEMs, and homebuilt systems. But that's what they have to do, to a certain point.
What I would like to see is the actual value ($30 as previously discussed) plus support options. Bug reports are free, basic installation and how-to adds $20, bundle whatever else to reach the $100+ model. Ultimate version or whatever else should be a support pack like they used to do, a separate purchase instead of a separate SKU. That would make testing easier anyway, since yu don't have to compile and test the whole OS. Point is, I don't want to pay MS for support, only for the software. I support the OS myself other than fixing bugs, which I sometimes even do anyway. If you want additional features, pay for it. If you want support, pay for it.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this area is bundling. All features, all support, everything is included in the direct-to-consumer price. Unbundle and let people have the parts they want.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1462988&cid=30289812
The circle is complete.
Off topic - what does your mom have to do with this?
Chances are someone got into a situation and this was added as a result. "It wasn't spam. Might have been off topic, but it wasn't spam." Pow, new regulation they can enforce. There's a guy somewhere who knows *exactly* why this was added.
Like Dr. Pepper has a warning to not aim at friends when opening, or McDonald's warning that hot coffee might be hot.
And Nic Cage once again ruined it with his terrible acting. Someone should get him a decent haircut.
It's shooped. I can tell by some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few shops in my time.
It's more likely this is a scare tactic, making people wary of downloading emulators because they might be illegal. "I heard Nintendo will sue you for using an emulator, just like the RIAA/MPAA are doing..." and disinformation spreads like wildfire.
It's purely public relations.
Famicom used to have kiosks that you could bring in your disks and write a new or replacement game on your physical disk. If something happens to the data on your disk, you can get the game back without having to pay full price. That was fair.
If you break the disk, it's no different from breaking anything else tangible - you want it replaced, you buy another or fix it yourself. If you scratch a game DVD, that seems like a user-damaged product.
At that point, you can ask a lawyer to ask the company whether they sold you a tangible object or a license to play. If they sold a tangible object, you can do whatever you want with it, including decompile, reverse engineer, back up (but not copy because that's a copyright violation same as photocopying a book for a friend, and for example only whole-disk copying would be allowed, no decrypting or selecting streams or re-encoding as an example). If they sold a license, the tangible medium doesn't matter and while your license is valid they should provide a replacement. The key is to ask this in a legal setting so they can't give you the runaround. And you should be talking to someone who can legally represent the company, not a customer service rep who can be scapegoated out for failure to follow process or something.
Like the JPEG library or zip or WWW client/browser, there is a reference implementation so you can test your implementation and ensure compatibility.
That part makes sense, including a reference implementation. I'm not sure about this part:
That makes sense, in a way, but you're not giving a complete 3D model that someone can use. The diagram is illustrative, to highlight and clarify the invention. A picture being worth a thousand words, it helps to draw something. So you provide pseudocode, which if the above quote is true, would not be copyrightable.
If you wish to include a working reference implementation, with the source under whatever license you wish, that's fine. So we have the patented algorithm described in pseudocode, which cannot be implemented by anyone else because of the patent. Same problem as the GP post, the algorithm is patented. What's the point of having a patent if someone else can just write it in another language to prove it's not a copy of the original code?
It doesn't solve any problem this way.
Pacifist is not quite the right word. We have a good enough life that people don't want to take a risk.
Riots and looting don't happen in affluent neighborhoods, or at least not by affluent people. Someone with a good job, nice benefits, a family, expensive possessions is not likely to throw a TV through a store window just to express outrage.
It's like dropping a $100 bill down the sewer pipe. If you don't have a lot of money, you might dedicate the rest of your day to getting that back. If it's just one of 50 you have on you, you might just figure it's not worth the effort.
And that's where the USA standards of living are right now - for almost everything, it's not worth the effort. Especially when we have state laws which take effect, they don't (directly) affect people in the 49 other states so why bother complaining... when people get to the point that they care, it's usually because they are desperate. Not because they suddenly develop a conscience or philosophy or a different world view.
MS thought they were being safe, like replacing single quotes with double before making an INSERT statement for a database, or removing less-than or greater than characters to prevent someone embedding <script> tags everywhere.
Someone is pre-formatting the data so that when it is re-written, it becomes dangerous. In other words, this is like EVERY OTHER VULNERABILITY EVER. Someone makes a feature, doesn't think it through completely, and either leaves a hole, bypass, or unintended consequence.
How fitting for the godfather.
The perception that IE is lagging behind comes from IE lagging behind. Not having any updates for year after year, and playing catch-up and copying features.
They have repeatedly stated they are not interested in dog-and-pony show tricks like ACID tests, instead focusing on what people use and what would make things easier for developers.
While this would make sense for an isolated company with an isolated product, they have to remember that their engine should render pages that were made by a non-microsoft product according to standards instead of by reading microsoft documentation. Microsoft is probably testing against their own test cases nightly, and having other people bother them about standards compliance would distract from their mission, whatever that is.
Again - their goal is internal compliance, and offering nightly builds externally does nothing to meet that. As long as that continues, you will have no nightlies combined with perception of lagging behind. They are intertwined.
If I can restate: The fact that you can embed COM objects in the latest version of Silverlight means that someone with Windows experience will decide it's easier to do it the COM way, and since 96% of users have it installed and it will decrease development time, let's do it. Everyone agree? Good, go. Thank goodness Microsoft made it so easy for us to reuse our old code, which happens to be one of the performance objectives I have to meet - increase code reuse. Plus our testing cycle is smaller since we don't have to unit or integration test the cOM portions - they are already working. Thanks, Steve!
Portability is a constraint you have to commit to, and it's easier not to.