Arcades are still alive, the difference is that the technological side of things has become to where it no longer is enough to have good graphics and fun gameplay. Rather, arcades compete by having expensive hardware and novelties. For example, lightguns with scopes with screens and games with motion and non-standard controls.
Hm, well I guess it is possible then, I didn't think it was because the last time I set up an iTunes account, creating one without a credit card required using an expired gift card or something along those lines.
If you haven't taught your kids to appreciate real money yet, then they shouldn't be in the position to spend real money without your supervision.
Which is exactly what this fixes. That kids can't spend real money without your permission. It is a technical issue. Apple has the capability to fix loopholes that allow kids to spend real money without their parents permission and they should fix them.
The problem in this super-connected age is that there are fewer and fewer ways that allow kids to explore 'real' technology without the risk of accidentally purchasing some DLC. Especially when its on a cell phone with an always-on internet connection.
Except for the fact that it is primarily a technical issue and not a parenting one. Apple's main job should be to deliver the highest quality product possible in order to gain the most profit. Since obviously people are using Apple's product in this way, even if you don't agree with it, Apple should support their customers by adding things to assist them in the way they use their product.
And really, by discouraging kids from playing with technology it breeds them into people who are paranoid about technology. The people who think that every little thing is going to destroy their computer/phone.
Because there are very few games without DLC today. And often times fun is associated with a cost, the point is to find the balance. For example, is a new video game fun? (In some cases) Yes. But is it worth $60 new to get it right away? It depends. Those are the questions that people have to deal with, is it worth it to buy it now? To buy it when you can get it for $30 used? To buy it late in the life of the console for only $10? To never buy it?
To shelter a kid from the real world where people -are- pressured to buy everything is counterproductive. Rather, use technical means to make sure that the kid can't spend more than they have (such as a gift-card only account). Sure, they might "waste" some money on pointless things, but eventually they will learn what they like and what they don't and they will be better prepared to spend money when they get larger amounts.
I really don't see how this is much of a parenting issue. Many kids have an iPod touch just like they might have a GameBoy or DS. The problem is that in-game purchases are too integrated into the game and it is feasible that a kid playing a game might not fully realize that this is going to be charged real money. Ideally what Apple would do would be when you set up your device in iTunes, you can create a "gift card only" account on it that would only bill gift cards and wouldn't buy something without enough store credit. So kids could still download free apps and spend their gift cards on apps/DLC but without the fear of it charging their parent's credit card.
Not necessarily. In a lot of games the "premium" features are in there just like other in-game money only with an extra dialogue saying that you will be charged for it. Depending on the game, there might already be a dialogue asking if you if you really want to select the item.
You mean something like.... YouTube? Granted, YouTube isn't as organized as Netflix is for finding shows you like, but if you heard of them from word of mouth, they are easy to get to and you aren't paying a subscription fee. Win-win.
Apple's App Store (notice the capitalization) has terms and conditions that make it impossible to distribute GPL v3 programs on there. Other "app stores" such as Cydia, Android Market, and heck, even repositories like apt-get don't have such silly terms and it is possible to have GPL v3 programs on there .
I'm sure it will help when they are sued by the RIAA for having that data or knowing where that data can be found, after all, if the Pirate Bay can be sued for linking to files that may or may not contain copyright infringements, why can't the DHS?
The PATRIOT act is an abuse of powers because it gives the government powers that are explicitly denied to them in the constitution.
And we won't see US citizens taking back the government anytime soon, since all of them have become so dependent on the government for all their entitlements.
The DHS has far too much funding if they have too much data and can't analyze it with current algorithms. And really, why do they need all this data in the first place? Chances are the vast majority of it is unconstitutional and shouldn't be collected to begin with.
Exactly. And since when is it truly -wrong- (not illegal, but harming someone else) to drink even under 21 (a really, really silly rule)? Do people -really- believe that before Facebook that people -didn't- do these things?
Because it allows you to bash the product. I don't think that Steve Jobs would be any too happy if the plot involved, for example, a virus that infects the computer, the computer bursting into flames, the computer requiring an expensive upgrade, or any other thing that doesn't portray a Mac in the greatest light.
You can't usually use parody with product placement. It also allows you to quickly shift products if one becomes unpopular and you aren't constantly afraid of the manufacturer pulling your license to use it.
Except for the fact its unrealistic and quite honestly kills the realism in a lot of films. For example, how often does it appear that everyone has unlimited money? Sure, the characters might complain about how expensive some stuff is then they sit down to their brand new $2,000 iMac, answer a call on their new $700 iPhone, etc. Sure, occasionally characters in movies are -supposed- to be filthy rich and can afford all the technology, but a lot of times they aren't.
Its not the difference between drinking water and Pepsi, it is the difference between someone drinking water and someone drinking fine champagne out of a solid gold goblet encrusted with jewels.
There are a -lot- of differences, especially when applications are concerned. For example, Thunderbird/Evolution/etc. behave differently than Outlook. Open Office behaves vastly different than Microsoft Office. Pidgin/Empathy behaves different than AIM/Live Messenger/etc. The configuration tools are vastly different, etc.
Now, this doesn't mean that Windows/Linux is better than the other, it is just most people thing Linux is a free version of Windows, which it isn't and will never be. The problem is the vast majority of Windows users don't know how to use a computer, they know how to use Windows. They don't think about it, they just know that the fourth icon from the right is the internet. Heck, many Windows users have sticky notes with detailed instructions on how to do simple tasks that are rather intuitive on Windows.
There is a difference between copyright and attribution, especially when it comes to fraud. For example, the Mona Lisa is in the public domain, however, it is fraudulent for me to claim that I used Microsoft Paint to paint the Mona Lisa in an advertisement for Windows (assuming it wasn't parody).
When you have images like that on a site, one assumes that they were made with your product unless explicitly it says they weren't. When they aren't made with your product (and many of the the images weren't even made in Blender), that is fraud. And fraud undermines capitalism and is a very bad thing.
Um, no they didn't. The only thing is that it says on the site is that "Images supplied by:
GPL Released Wiki's " which they aren't. Because of the images cited on the page that Blender shows the artist's page which have all rights reserved to them.
If you use GNOME and use only GNOME programs (or, to a lesser extent, KDE and only KDE programs) you get a clean minimal interface (yes, Linux still sucks on the games department), but really, Windows isn't much better. (see http://origin.arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-II.media/vista-small.png ). The problems with graphical inconstancy comes when people choose programs for their features rather than their UI and different people have different preferences.
There are two barriers to widespread Linux adoption the first is niche software support. Things like professional audio and photography programs and games. And the second is that people expect it to work just like Windows. OS X avoids this because people are getting a brand new computer when they get OS X and they expect it to be different. People don't know what an operating system is and assume that if its running on the same box it should be the same if its running Linux or Windows.
The problem isn't that they are reselling it, that is perfectly legal. But they are using the Blender Foundation's copyrighted images and other people's copyrighted images to do so.
No, what they are doing is not legal. They are taking non-free images and using it on their own site while claiming it is their own. There's nothing wrong with someone taking Blender, remaking it, licensing it under the GPL and creating a website and selling it. But that isn't what these people are doing, they are trying to deceive others and not crediting the images they use to promote their product.
Ok, lets look at "famous" creators, who are lauded at making advancements in our culture.
Shakespeare basically copied famous works all over the place. Romeo and Juliet was basically just a play version of The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet which was published in 1562, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was published in 1597, a mere 35 years later, it would not fall under public domain today until after Shakespeare would have died. When you look at all of Shakespeare's plays, they are all taken from various works, some would be public domain today, many others would not be. Yet, Shakespeare is considered by many to be one of the masters of the English language and one of the greatest playwrights.
Disney, one of the most pro-copyright companies took ideas left and right for all of their works. Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc. are all taken from different sources with very little being contributed from Disney.
There is no such thing as an original work. Everything is based on other works or common themes.
Except for the fact that there should be no Tolkien estate owning the rights to it. The idea that someone's heirs can say what you can and can't do with a piece of fiction written over 55 years ago written by someone who died 38 years ago is ridiculous. Copyright needs to be much, much, much more limited. When you look at the history of literature, all of it has been shaped through remixing and reusing ideas and stories of those who wrote before.
The entire point of my post was to show that there are no benefits to extending wiretaps and that conventional wiretaps by themselves aren't needed to catch true criminals because real evidence can be found elsewhere.
Exactly. The lack of customization is the one thing keeping me away from using Chrome (or one of Chrome's alternate builds). Heck, IE 6 had more customization than Chrome offers. And it isn't even UI issues, Chrome seems to think that there should be no history options between save and log absolutely everything and super paranoid no cookies, no logs, no cache, mode. And don't even get me started on all the about:config Firefox tweaks that are unavailable in Chrome...
Look, if Google wants to keep their minimalistic look and feel thats fine. Just let us have the ability to customize it as much if not more than Firefox. Until that happens or Firefox truly becomes unusable, I'm sticking with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Arcades are still alive, the difference is that the technological side of things has become to where it no longer is enough to have good graphics and fun gameplay. Rather, arcades compete by having expensive hardware and novelties. For example, lightguns with scopes with screens and games with motion and non-standard controls.
Hm, well I guess it is possible then, I didn't think it was because the last time I set up an iTunes account, creating one without a credit card required using an expired gift card or something along those lines.
\\
If you haven't taught your kids to appreciate real money yet, then they shouldn't be in the position to spend real money without your supervision.
Which is exactly what this fixes. That kids can't spend real money without your permission. It is a technical issue. Apple has the capability to fix loopholes that allow kids to spend real money without their parents permission and they should fix them.
The problem in this super-connected age is that there are fewer and fewer ways that allow kids to explore 'real' technology without the risk of accidentally purchasing some DLC. Especially when its on a cell phone with an always-on internet connection.
Except for the fact that it is primarily a technical issue and not a parenting one. Apple's main job should be to deliver the highest quality product possible in order to gain the most profit. Since obviously people are using Apple's product in this way, even if you don't agree with it, Apple should support their customers by adding things to assist them in the way they use their product.
And really, by discouraging kids from playing with technology it breeds them into people who are paranoid about technology. The people who think that every little thing is going to destroy their computer/phone.
Because there are very few games without DLC today. And often times fun is associated with a cost, the point is to find the balance. For example, is a new video game fun? (In some cases) Yes. But is it worth $60 new to get it right away? It depends. Those are the questions that people have to deal with, is it worth it to buy it now? To buy it when you can get it for $30 used? To buy it late in the life of the console for only $10? To never buy it?
To shelter a kid from the real world where people -are- pressured to buy everything is counterproductive. Rather, use technical means to make sure that the kid can't spend more than they have (such as a gift-card only account). Sure, they might "waste" some money on pointless things, but eventually they will learn what they like and what they don't and they will be better prepared to spend money when they get larger amounts.
I really don't see how this is much of a parenting issue. Many kids have an iPod touch just like they might have a GameBoy or DS. The problem is that in-game purchases are too integrated into the game and it is feasible that a kid playing a game might not fully realize that this is going to be charged real money. Ideally what Apple would do would be when you set up your device in iTunes, you can create a "gift card only" account on it that would only bill gift cards and wouldn't buy something without enough store credit. So kids could still download free apps and spend their gift cards on apps/DLC but without the fear of it charging their parent's credit card.
Not necessarily. In a lot of games the "premium" features are in there just like other in-game money only with an extra dialogue saying that you will be charged for it. Depending on the game, there might already be a dialogue asking if you if you really want to select the item.
You mean something like.... YouTube? Granted, YouTube isn't as organized as Netflix is for finding shows you like, but if you heard of them from word of mouth, they are easy to get to and you aren't paying a subscription fee. Win-win.
An app store != App Store.
Apple's App Store (notice the capitalization) has terms and conditions that make it impossible to distribute GPL v3 programs on there. Other "app stores" such as Cydia, Android Market, and heck, even repositories like apt-get don't have such silly terms and it is possible to have GPL v3 programs on there .
I'm sure it will help when they are sued by the RIAA for having that data or knowing where that data can be found, after all, if the Pirate Bay can be sued for linking to files that may or may not contain copyright infringements, why can't the DHS?
The PATRIOT act is an abuse of powers because it gives the government powers that are explicitly denied to them in the constitution.
And we won't see US citizens taking back the government anytime soon, since all of them have become so dependent on the government for all their entitlements.
The DHS has far too much funding if they have too much data and can't analyze it with current algorithms. And really, why do they need all this data in the first place? Chances are the vast majority of it is unconstitutional and shouldn't be collected to begin with.
Exactly. And since when is it truly -wrong- (not illegal, but harming someone else) to drink even under 21 (a really, really silly rule)? Do people -really- believe that before Facebook that people -didn't- do these things?
Because it allows you to bash the product. I don't think that Steve Jobs would be any too happy if the plot involved, for example, a virus that infects the computer, the computer bursting into flames, the computer requiring an expensive upgrade, or any other thing that doesn't portray a Mac in the greatest light.
You can't usually use parody with product placement. It also allows you to quickly shift products if one becomes unpopular and you aren't constantly afraid of the manufacturer pulling your license to use it.
Except for the fact its unrealistic and quite honestly kills the realism in a lot of films. For example, how often does it appear that everyone has unlimited money? Sure, the characters might complain about how expensive some stuff is then they sit down to their brand new $2,000 iMac, answer a call on their new $700 iPhone, etc. Sure, occasionally characters in movies are -supposed- to be filthy rich and can afford all the technology, but a lot of times they aren't.
Its not the difference between drinking water and Pepsi, it is the difference between someone drinking water and someone drinking fine champagne out of a solid gold goblet encrusted with jewels.
There are a -lot- of differences, especially when applications are concerned. For example, Thunderbird/Evolution/etc. behave differently than Outlook. Open Office behaves vastly different than Microsoft Office. Pidgin/Empathy behaves different than AIM/Live Messenger/etc. The configuration tools are vastly different, etc.
Now, this doesn't mean that Windows/Linux is better than the other, it is just most people thing Linux is a free version of Windows, which it isn't and will never be. The problem is the vast majority of Windows users don't know how to use a computer, they know how to use Windows. They don't think about it, they just know that the fourth icon from the right is the internet. Heck, many Windows users have sticky notes with detailed instructions on how to do simple tasks that are rather intuitive on Windows.
There is a difference between copyright and attribution, especially when it comes to fraud. For example, the Mona Lisa is in the public domain, however, it is fraudulent for me to claim that I used Microsoft Paint to paint the Mona Lisa in an advertisement for Windows (assuming it wasn't parody).
When you have images like that on a site, one assumes that they were made with your product unless explicitly it says they weren't. When they aren't made with your product (and many of the the images weren't even made in Blender), that is fraud. And fraud undermines capitalism and is a very bad thing.
Um, no they didn't. The only thing is that it says on the site is that "Images supplied by: GPL Released Wiki's " which they aren't. Because of the images cited on the page that Blender shows the artist's page which have all rights reserved to them.
If you use GNOME and use only GNOME programs (or, to a lesser extent, KDE and only KDE programs) you get a clean minimal interface (yes, Linux still sucks on the games department), but really, Windows isn't much better. (see http://origin.arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-II.media/vista-small.png ). The problems with graphical inconstancy comes when people choose programs for their features rather than their UI and different people have different preferences.
There are two barriers to widespread Linux adoption the first is niche software support. Things like professional audio and photography programs and games. And the second is that people expect it to work just like Windows. OS X avoids this because people are getting a brand new computer when they get OS X and they expect it to be different. People don't know what an operating system is and assume that if its running on the same box it should be the same if its running Linux or Windows.
The problem isn't that they are reselling it, that is perfectly legal. But they are using the Blender Foundation's copyrighted images and other people's copyrighted images to do so.
No, what they are doing is not legal. They are taking non-free images and using it on their own site while claiming it is their own. There's nothing wrong with someone taking Blender, remaking it, licensing it under the GPL and creating a website and selling it. But that isn't what these people are doing, they are trying to deceive others and not crediting the images they use to promote their product.
Ok, lets look at "famous" creators, who are lauded at making advancements in our culture.
Shakespeare basically copied famous works all over the place. Romeo and Juliet was basically just a play version of The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet which was published in 1562, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was published in 1597, a mere 35 years later, it would not fall under public domain today until after Shakespeare would have died. When you look at all of Shakespeare's plays, they are all taken from various works, some would be public domain today, many others would not be. Yet, Shakespeare is considered by many to be one of the masters of the English language and one of the greatest playwrights.
Disney, one of the most pro-copyright companies took ideas left and right for all of their works. Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc. are all taken from different sources with very little being contributed from Disney.
There is no such thing as an original work. Everything is based on other works or common themes.
Except for the fact that there should be no Tolkien estate owning the rights to it. The idea that someone's heirs can say what you can and can't do with a piece of fiction written over 55 years ago written by someone who died 38 years ago is ridiculous. Copyright needs to be much, much, much more limited. When you look at the history of literature, all of it has been shaped through remixing and reusing ideas and stories of those who wrote before.
The entire point of my post was to show that there are no benefits to extending wiretaps and that conventional wiretaps by themselves aren't needed to catch true criminals because real evidence can be found elsewhere.
Exactly. The lack of customization is the one thing keeping me away from using Chrome (or one of Chrome's alternate builds). Heck, IE 6 had more customization than Chrome offers. And it isn't even UI issues, Chrome seems to think that there should be no history options between save and log absolutely everything and super paranoid no cookies, no logs, no cache, mode. And don't even get me started on all the about:config Firefox tweaks that are unavailable in Chrome...
Look, if Google wants to keep their minimalistic look and feel thats fine. Just let us have the ability to customize it as much if not more than Firefox. Until that happens or Firefox truly becomes unusable, I'm sticking with it.