Ah yes, *facepalm*. I meant Jonathan Swift. Still, not quite as bad as the time I accidentally stated Pablo (Picasso)'s Wager instead of Pascal's Wager. Also I have never watched The Fifth Element.
The genie is out of the bottle and people are too scared now. I'm waiting for the day that someone suggests flying requires passengers to be put to sleep through anesthetics and shipped in cubes, not mean it to be a Thomas Swift Modest Proposal type suggestion.
"...such environmental changes actually deter crime or just push it down the block. Not everyone is sold on using 'lovely lovely Ludwig Van' as a deterrent."
So somewhere, some when there is a person who believes a little Bethoven will so move teenage youth to give up all crime, and become law abiding citizens. And they say the perpetual youth are the delusional.
My opinion on this matters on one detail that I am not seeing in the summary, and can't seem to find in the TFA. If they use myself for an advertisement. Is it an advertisement only seen by people I'm friends with or everyone?
If the former, it sets a disgusting precedent, that along Google's new social search, might be just barely ruled legal depending on the judge. This would be a step from going from losing privacy to a creep of losing even control of your own identity to corporations.
If the latter, this isn't just a creep. This is full blown jumping off the ledge. There is no way in hell a Judge could find this legal. At this point FaceBook needs to be slapped down hard, very hard.
Why? So far t his is just the ARM version. It sounds more like they just are going the cheap route, and not fulling integrating the ARM version with their Intel version.
Basically to my thinking: A) Other Win8 versions have these features, then this is laziness. No borg icon warrented. B) All Win8 versions lack these features (then why the big deal about the ARM version?), then this is a closing of the walls intentionally for a purpose. Borg icon deserved.
The same with nearly any artist whether they be video, comic, novelist, gaming, etc. Back in the day you had to go through a publisher. In this case for music we call the publisher a label. They had a monopoly. Right now, I can't say how fair their practices were or how much each level should get. That was then. Now? Aaron Diaz of the Dresden Codak had a blog post explaining that he makes more money going solo. Many artists are now making art through music, comics, eBooks, etc. because the publishers are no longer needed. The paradigm has shifted this generation.
There are two forces at play here. Cultural and the habit. Some need publishers for the prestige it brings. They feel less authentic as a whatever unless they have a publisher feeling they can make money off of them. Others just don't know how to make due without a publisher. However, that would still be a publisher of sorts.
Paraphrasing Scott Adams from "The Dilbert Future", written in the mid-early nineties:
"In the future we will have mechanisms to observe and convict 100% of all crime. We will also quickly learn that 100% of the population is guilty of some crime."
Essentially, allowing them to be "upgradeable" removes the last barrier that effectively makes them computers with odd user interface devices. So I must say to anyone who wants upgrade-able consoles, it is okay. You don't have to be in the closet. PC gaming isn't so evil you need to hide it under a hipster like charade. We understand.
At this point they do have a point. Turing is dead. A pardon changes what? The damage is done. It is in the history. If a person still lives under punishment from those laws, yes, a pardon is deserved as those laws no longer exist. This would be a mere glorified apology.
That and I am not sure if the precedent would be a good thing. If they can pardon people for actions in hindsight for political motives, how long before someone gets the bright idea to try to retroactively convict?
And I don't see why the tests themselves can't be copyrighted. The answers and ideas might very well be ideas and facts, but the questions used to illicit said answers can be unique/original enough if sufficiently verbose to qualify.
Guns merely use fear, a suppressant. In the right condition the keyboard/pen can cause ignition in the masses. One hose can suppress countless sparks, but all it takes is the fight one for something to begin.
The problem is that something can be anything. We have to sort through the ashes to find out if it was good, bad, or either.
Let's take to to heart. We may never find out what light moves in, whether it be ether or not. Why does it even matter if we know how light moves? Let alone what these "atoms" are made of. Does it really benefit us to know that atoms are made of things? Does it improve chemistry at all? We live on Earth in this Universe called the Milky Way. Funds are wasted on such heretics that think the Andromeda gas blob could actually be another universe. A multi-verse? Ye gods.
-Signed, some random person from some year I'm too lazy to look-up where all these views were mutual.
Science can't be all knowing because of finite resources, finite time, and we live in an era of science denial-ism with paradoxical unrealistic optimism for Science.
By the last one all I need to do is point to diseases. For denial, just look at Anti-vaxers. For the optimism, how many would have thought AIDS or "cancer" (often spoken of as a singular disease) would be cured by now?
0) ". ..for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." It is none of these.
1) "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" - Technically non-profit, but not for an educational purpose. Well, unless you count used to introduce a candidate to an event where he is educating them about himself. I think that is a bit too broad to work.
2) "the nature of the copyrighted work" - Neither a fact, idea or something as important to the public as the Zapruder film.
3) "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and" - The whole thing isn't being played, but how much of it?
4) "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." - I don't think this would be allowed to apply here. If the song can be blasted in part for this event, why not others? At that point the value of the song begins to go down due to over use.
It could go either way, but I'm leaning against fair use. I'm leaning enough against it that I expect this to be quietly hushed up with a settlement.
Part of what got our country into gear was JFK's death. JFK was even trying to covertly kill the program by rigging it so Republicans would kill it for lack of favorable earmark kick backs and similar games.
They are doing this because they aren't getting any money from the game. They got their money from the new buyer. This is targeted towards used buyers. I'm waiting for one of these gaming companies execs to slip one day and equate used game buying to pirateing, because to them it is effectively the same thing. You are getting the game for "free" in their eyes.
Expect it because that is what is going on here. Games are software. We don't see mass anger over not being able to buy/sell PhotoShop, Windows version X, Final Cut Pro second hand. Those were all pure software for a long, long time in relativistic terms. Except for illegal roms, and the often ignored PC market, gaming has and still is dependent on physical medium that can be perceived as transferable item.
This isn't a new battle. Just a new front that has opened up thanks to game consoles getting on-line and having hard drives.
Most of the time I would rarely sell games because they would get me next to nothing back by time I was done with them, but I'd buy used. Steam often has sales and ensures I can never lose the game like I can with a disk.
Am I missing something? This sounds like a good idea except for that Newscorp is involved. Besides that, what is wrong with this? Heck, I'm even wondering if anonymous, averaged data per school would be publicly available to see how schools are doing.
It just seems like this is the sort of thing that should have a glaring hole in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Both parties say that to different degrees. They disagree which portions of government should be reduced.
Ah yes, *facepalm*. I meant Jonathan Swift. Still, not quite as bad as the time I accidentally stated Pablo (Picasso)'s Wager instead of Pascal's Wager. Also I have never watched The Fifth Element.
The genie is out of the bottle and people are too scared now. I'm waiting for the day that someone suggests flying requires passengers to be put to sleep through anesthetics and shipped in cubes, not mean it to be a Thomas Swift Modest Proposal type suggestion.
"...such environmental changes actually deter crime or just push it down the block. Not everyone is sold on using 'lovely lovely Ludwig Van' as a deterrent."
So somewhere, some when there is a person who believes a little Bethoven will so move teenage youth to give up all crime, and become law abiding citizens. And they say the perpetual youth are the delusional.
Tell me about it. At this rate we will "sufficiently studied" ourselves back to living in caves.
Get strict enough, and I don't even Know if I exist. I might be a very stubborn delusion of someone's day dream.
Apparently, if that is so, it must be a very boring day dream.
Internet bullying is no different from regular bullying. When you are a public figure anything goes.
My opinion on this matters on one detail that I am not seeing in the summary, and can't seem to find in the TFA. If they use myself for an advertisement. Is it an advertisement only seen by people I'm friends with or everyone?
If the former, it sets a disgusting precedent, that along Google's new social search, might be just barely ruled legal depending on the judge. This would be a step from going from losing privacy to a creep of losing even control of your own identity to corporations.
If the latter, this isn't just a creep. This is full blown jumping off the ledge. There is no way in hell a Judge could find this legal. At this point FaceBook needs to be slapped down hard, very hard.
Why? So far t his is just the ARM version. It sounds more like they just are going the cheap route, and not fulling integrating the ARM version with their Intel version.
Basically to my thinking:
A) Other Win8 versions have these features, then this is laziness. No borg icon warrented.
B) All Win8 versions lack these features (then why the big deal about the ARM version?), then this is a closing of the walls intentionally for a purpose. Borg icon deserved.
The same with nearly any artist whether they be video, comic, novelist, gaming, etc. Back in the day you had to go through a publisher. In this case for music we call the publisher a label. They had a monopoly. Right now, I can't say how fair their practices were or how much each level should get. That was then. Now? Aaron Diaz of the Dresden Codak had a blog post explaining that he makes more money going solo. Many artists are now making art through music, comics, eBooks, etc. because the publishers are no longer needed. The paradigm has shifted this generation.
There are two forces at play here. Cultural and the habit. Some need publishers for the prestige it brings. They feel less authentic as a whatever unless they have a publisher feeling they can make money off of them. Others just don't know how to make due without a publisher. However, that would still be a publisher of sorts.
Paraphrasing Scott Adams from "The Dilbert Future", written in the mid-early nineties:
"In the future we will have mechanisms to observe and convict 100% of all crime. We will also quickly learn that 100% of the population is guilty of some crime."
You basically said what I was going to say.
Essentially, allowing them to be "upgradeable" removes the last barrier that effectively makes them computers with odd user interface devices. So I must say to anyone who wants upgrade-able consoles, it is okay. You don't have to be in the closet. PC gaming isn't so evil you need to hide it under a hipster like charade. We understand.
Didn't this happen once? I heard of a libertarian legend that the US gov. once forcibly pooled all the patents required to create airplanes.
At this point they do have a point. Turing is dead. A pardon changes what? The damage is done. It is in the history. If a person still lives under punishment from those laws, yes, a pardon is deserved as those laws no longer exist. This would be a mere glorified apology.
That and I am not sure if the precedent would be a good thing. If they can pardon people for actions in hindsight for political motives, how long before someone gets the bright idea to try to retroactively convict?
And I don't see why the tests themselves can't be copyrighted. The answers and ideas might very well be ideas and facts, but the questions used to illicit said answers can be unique/original enough if sufficiently verbose to qualify.
Guns merely use fear, a suppressant. In the right condition the keyboard/pen can cause ignition in the masses. One hose can suppress countless sparks, but all it takes is the fight one for something to begin.
The problem is that something can be anything. We have to sort through the ashes to find out if it was good, bad, or either.
Blogger only for now.
Let's take to to heart. We may never find out what light moves in, whether it be ether or not. Why does it even matter if we know how light moves? Let alone what these "atoms" are made of. Does it really benefit us to know that atoms are made of things? Does it improve chemistry at all? We live on Earth in this Universe called the Milky Way. Funds are wasted on such heretics that think the Andromeda gas blob could actually be another universe. A multi-verse? Ye gods.
-Signed, some random person from some year I'm too lazy to look-up where all these views were mutual.
Science can't be all knowing because of finite resources, finite time, and we live in an era of science denial-ism with paradoxical unrealistic optimism for Science.
By the last one all I need to do is point to diseases. For denial, just look at Anti-vaxers. For the optimism, how many would have thought AIDS or "cancer" (often spoken of as a singular disease) would be cured by now?
You would need to be a lawyer, practically, to know how fine this line is. For example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/nbc-mitt-romney-tom-brokaw-ad_n_1239107.html . Romney's use of that news footage in an advertisement is likely Fair Use.
Gingrich is using the music for self-promotion at campaign events. Definition/standards of fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Purpose_and_character
0) ". . .for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." It is none of these.
1) "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" - Technically non-profit, but not for an educational purpose. Well, unless you count used to introduce a candidate to an event where he is educating them about himself. I think that is a bit too broad to work.
2) "the nature of the copyrighted work" - Neither a fact, idea or something as important to the public as the Zapruder film.
3) "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and" - The whole thing isn't being played, but how much of it?
4) "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." - I don't think this would be allowed to apply here. If the song can be blasted in part for this event, why not others? At that point the value of the song begins to go down due to over use.
It could go either way, but I'm leaning against fair use. I'm leaning enough against it that I expect this to be quietly hushed up with a settlement.
Part of what got our country into gear was JFK's death. JFK was even trying to covertly kill the program by rigging it so Republicans would kill it for lack of favorable earmark kick backs and similar games.
Knee-jerk reaction.
They are doing this because they aren't getting any money from the game. They got their money from the new buyer. This is targeted towards used buyers. I'm waiting for one of these gaming companies execs to slip one day and equate used game buying to pirateing, because to them it is effectively the same thing. You are getting the game for "free" in their eyes.
Expect it because that is what is going on here. Games are software. We don't see mass anger over not being able to buy/sell PhotoShop, Windows version X, Final Cut Pro second hand. Those were all pure software for a long, long time in relativistic terms. Except for illegal roms, and the often ignored PC market, gaming has and still is dependent on physical medium that can be perceived as transferable item.
This isn't a new battle. Just a new front that has opened up thanks to game consoles getting on-line and having hard drives.
I wish I had mod points to give you.
Most of the time I would rarely sell games because they would get me next to nothing back by time I was done with them, but I'd buy used. Steam often has sales and ensures I can never lose the game like I can with a disk.
Not even SWTOR launched all at once. They let in pre-orders early and staggered those in to avoid a server data flood.
Or a Hipster.
"Yes, I use an Apple device. Yes, I have Siri. But, I don't want to be that tethered to Apple."
Am I missing something? This sounds like a good idea except for that Newscorp is involved. Besides that, what is wrong with this? Heck, I'm even wondering if anonymous, averaged data per school would be publicly available to see how schools are doing.
It just seems like this is the sort of thing that should have a glaring hole in it.