When your eyes focus on a point in space... say, the distance from you to a tv screen, your eyes already receive different images that your brain fuses into a single 3d image inside your head.
The reason "3D" sucks is because it's not really "3d"... it's forced stereo viewing at specific viewing angles... forced because the filters over each lense only allow the light from the designated perspective to hit your eye. Everyone in the theater experiences this stereao viewing from the same two angles, regardless of their distance from the screen.
When you aren't wearing any glasses, however, the stereo viewing isn't forced on you. Any 3d image that you see will correspond with how far you are from what it is you are looking at. The eyes of people further away from a screen would have to converge less than those of people who were closer, and it would be no more problematic for your perceptions than dealing with a pop-up book.
Actually it shouldn't cause any headaches. The headaches you get from stereovision are caused because primarily because of
the convergence of your eyes not actually aligning with the distance you are focusing on, which is the distance from your face to the viewing screen. This happens entirely because your eyes are being force-fed two separate images, from two specific viewing points, that aren't necessarily the correct distance apart based on how far you are from the screen, and your brain has to give your eyes additional instructions on how to converge to fuse those images into a single 3d one in your brain.
In this case, however, your eyes aren't being forced to see anything other than what they would normally see. Both your eyes' focal distance and convergence distance will always be the same... the distance from you to the screen. You will either see a blurry image, much like you would at a 3d theater without wearing any glasses, or else a fully 3d image... depending on how far apart the views are that your eyes are actually receiving.
Again, this is only because your eyes aren't being force-fed only one particular viewing angle.
That's not the reason to not want one's work pirated.
The reason a copyright holder should have reasonable objection to somebody pirating their work, whether or not they were ever going to pay for it, is because it encroaches on the copying rights that are supposed to be exclusively at the purview of the content maker.
Revenue is completely irrelevant to this point. When somebody pirates a work, the value that the content maker might have otherwise had in their exclusivity (which is what copyright itself is supposed to entail) is compromised, and there does exist at least some merit in the notion that they ought to be financially compensated for that loss of control.
But the matter with regards to content publication has always been about distributive control. As copying technologies have advanced through the ages, however, the mere social contract of copyright since its inception, which essentially amounts to the notion that society will honor the content maker's desire for exclusive control over copies in exchange for access to the work, has been breaking down. Society began to stop respecting their side of the contract, and ignored the content maker's desire for exclusive rights on determining who should be permitted to make copies. Publishers, in response, began artificially contriving schemes which made their works arguably marginally more difficult to copy, but would have an unforseeable impact on the work's availability, as legitimate consumers may find they cannot utilize the works as they intended because of copy protection being in the way.
Copyright is dissolving... which is unfortunate, because at least it was a contract that society had some control over. What is replacing it now, however... is something which consumers will have no control over... DRM and other types of censorship that keep consumers from accessing the content.
Ostriches do not stick their heads in sand or ever try to simply ignore danger.
Ostriches are not cowardly, they will definitely put up a fight when they believe they have a good chance of winning. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you probably realize that they are big-ass birds that could easily wipe the floor with a good percentage of other creatures in the animal kingdom. If they encounter a situation that they cannot mitigate, however, then they will run away... being exceptionally good at it (they are the fastest running creature on two legs).
If, and only if, they have nowhere to run to, and they cannot mitigate the danger themselves, then they will lie very still, presumably in the hope that they will be ignored. They do not pretend that the danger is not there, however... and will generally resort to fleeing at the first opportunity. Their practice of lying still is where the myth that they stick their head in the sand comes from, and it's ironic that what is actually a very atypical behavior for that type of bird ever got to be somehow associated as something that they generally practice.
My point is that eventually, they might just assume that anyone is liable to lie about their own age, and a more objective form of proof is going to be required.
I know... which I find unfortunate, because other measures that content makers will utilize to protect their interest do not involve society in any way.
Just before the turn of the century, our household was offered the opportunity to be part of the Nielson ratings.
Owing to remembering all-too-often experience as a youth, when I would start to watch new shows that I really liked, only to see them cancelled before they finished even half a season, let alone established any kind of closure for the events in the show, simply on account of poor ratings, I believed that the chance to be actively involved in measuring the my involvement in the shows that I liked would finally be my opportunity for my voice to be heard. Certainly, since every member in a Nielson home represents a viewership of something on the order of 10,000 or more viewers in other households, I figured that if records were actually being kept about which shows that I watch, and this information was handed to the neworks, then the chance of a show that I liked being cancelled was bound to be that much less.
They hooked up devices to all of our video equipment, to record not only which stations we were watching, but also which programs we were recording. The logging-in procedure was perhaps the most tedious aspect, having to be repeated every couple of hours if the TV was still on to ensure that people were still actually there, but I still found it reassuring that my votes were counting for something. Each member of our household was assigned a unique button on the set-top box which represented that individual's viewership, so that they could track demographics for a show and not just whether or not a program was simply being watched. When our niece came to live with us in 2000, they assigned her a button as well.
Then, in 2003. the first new show I was really interested in since we started being a Nielson household came on the air on what was then called the "UPN network", Jake 2.0. All 6 of us in my family enjoyed the show, and watched it religiously every week. Alas, however, it was cancelled after 16 episodes.
I was quite upset about this. Finally the few TV shows that I actually watched were actually being noted by people who had influence to affect the program, and when a new show comes on that I really like and watch every single week, the show gets cancelled anyway.
I called up our regional contact person later that same week and told her that I wanted the stuff pulled out of our equipment... that we were resigning. She was disappointed to hear it, and attempted to tell me that contrary to my beliefs, my voice was really being heard, but as it apparently didn't make any difference to the outcome, I ended it then and there.
I remember saying to the tech person as they were dismantling the equipment from out TV and VCR, however, that I thought they should probably start expanding their facilities to include Internet usage. He nodded in agreement with me while he worked, saying that it would be a good idea, but that he felt the technology wasn't quite ready to make that practical.
Copyright is a contract. It is an exchange between society and the content maker for the latter to have (limited) exclusive copying rights on the work in exchange for the content maker to actually distribute it to the general public in the first place. The content maker could just as easily self-censor, or restrict their audience to a hand-selected set of people... but the concept of copyright was to enrich society (in fact, the threat of this happening in the aftermath of the invention of the printing press played no small part in the rationale for copyright in the first place). Oddly enough, DRM is really just another form of self-censorship... since it limits people's access to the content under terms that the content maker controls, and there can be no doubt that it's just as much of a violation of the underlying copyright contract as society not respecting it is.
Although I don't abide by publishers that utilize DRM for a second, for what it's worth... once a DRM'd work does fall into public domain (some 100 or so years later), at least it won't be any violation of the DMCA to break the lock on that work.
If that were the case, then piracy incidence would rise with increased publisher lockdowns or more restrictive copyright terms. That's not the case. In fact, there's no statistically significant correlation between such changes to copyright terms and piracy. Rather, piracy incidence has risen entirely monotonically with the widespread availability of consumer technologies that gave them the ability to easily copy. The easier copying became, the more piracy happened. It's not a a direct functional relationship, but there's definitely a statistically significant positive correlation.
How long is it before that's countered with the notion that not taking some measures to prevent people from lying about their age could be construed as allow underage people to use the services.
At least in a bar, you have to show some real ID... they won't just ask you your age and be satisfied with the answer if you look like you might be under the legal drinking age.
You seem to be under the impression that copying is something that is relatively recent... or exclusive to the digital realm.
It isn't.... there is a long history of analog piracy that is decades older than the DMCA... something that as newer technology was developed, the manufacturers were hoping to nip in the bud with legislation before it became an issue. (Didn't really work though, did it).
No. The issue with regards to not negatively impacting employee health and safety applies to *ALL* employers in BC, even "high tech professionals".
If you work at such a job, and you find that your working hours are affecting your health, you can file a complaint with the Director of Employment Standards. You had better have a fairly objective proof of your claim, however. This generally involves keeping a paper trail of how your health has been impacted over the course of time since excessive hours began, and will probably require confirmation by an outside medical professional, who can examine the evidence at hand and present their unbiased conclusions.
If the director finds that your claim has validity, they can and *WILL* impose hour restrictions on the company for how long they are allowed to let employees work, bringing it right down to the standard 40-hour week, 8 hours per day for an indeterminate period of time. Of course, the company may be just as liable to simply dismiss somebody who they feel may be likely to file such a complaint, coming up with a convenient plausible excuse before it is ever an issue.
DRM is about distributive control... but they've always had distributive control in one form or another anyways.
The purpose of DRM is to supplement the diminishing faith that the content makers have traditionally placed in the strength of the copyright claim alone to keep people from copying the work without authorization.
As copying has gotten easier and easier, the mere social contract between publisher and community, which essentially says that the latter will not copy it without permission, effectively granting the publisher a form of distributive control, has started to break down... people are no longer adhering to their side of that contract, and so it is inevitable that publishers will seek alternative means to protect their interests.
Before copyright itself, effective distributive control still existed for people who made content because the work involved in making a copy was very time consuming and difficult. At the very least, it involved sufficient manual labor and errors in reproduction that the counterfeits rarely obtained as much notoriety as the originals. This is hardly the circumstance today, where it's pretty much an an everyday occurrence to see movies that wer3e just released up on Pirate Bay within days or sometimes hours of release, for download by anybody who simply doesn't want to pay the cash to see it in the theater.
Unfortunately, the people who don't give a damn about DRM, which is a staggering majority, don't generally care what the people who loathe DRM think about it, even if it's only because they aren't technically competent enough to understand all of the ramifications... and trying to explain it to them is not terribly unlike trying to educate a dead tree on the merits of your political views. So that' s the flaw in your otherwise very reasonable-sounding plan.
BC Employment Standards Law, section 39. "Despite any provision of this Part, an employer must not require or directly or indirectly allow an employee to work excessive hours which are detrimental to the employee's health or safety". This even includes so-called "high technology professionals".
Is it iillegal to import, without authorization, a cell phone that has been entirely legally unlocked outside of the jurisdiction where cell phone unlocking is prohibited?
The only reason it would ever be nearly impossible for objective journalism to cover this is if there was some sort of cover-up in the first place. Which, gosh-darn-it... sounds *JUST* like a conspiracy theory.
...fail to present any counter-hypothesis..
Pot, meet kettle. All I see from the summary submitter is something that they wanted to see, not necessarily a reflection of what actually happened. Maybe it did... but it's jumping to conclusions based on irrational belief, intuition, or a hunch. It's not unbiased reporting.
Besides... EA themselves stated that they believe such outrcries to be nothing more than the loud outbursts of a minority, albeit a very vocal one.
If consumer retaliation over such games actually played some part in this turn of events, then it stands to reason that would be endeavoring to learn from their mistakes. But they are showing no intention of changing their behavior, which suggests that they weren't that negatively impacted by the consumer outcry. Which suggests that the notion they are firing their CEO over it may be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the person who posted the summary..
Slashdot Mirror
When your eyes focus on a point in space... say, the distance from you to a tv screen, your eyes already receive different images that your brain fuses into a single 3d image inside your head.
The reason "3D" sucks is because it's not really "3d"... it's forced stereo viewing at specific viewing angles... forced because the filters over each lense only allow the light from the designated perspective to hit your eye. Everyone in the theater experiences this stereao viewing from the same two angles, regardless of their distance from the screen.
When you aren't wearing any glasses, however, the stereo viewing isn't forced on you. Any 3d image that you see will correspond with how far you are from what it is you are looking at. The eyes of people further away from a screen would have to converge less than those of people who were closer, and it would be no more problematic for your perceptions than dealing with a pop-up book.
Actually it shouldn't cause any headaches. The headaches you get from stereovision are caused because primarily because of the convergence of your eyes not actually aligning with the distance you are focusing on, which is the distance from your face to the viewing screen. This happens entirely because your eyes are being force-fed two separate images, from two specific viewing points, that aren't necessarily the correct distance apart based on how far you are from the screen, and your brain has to give your eyes additional instructions on how to converge to fuse those images into a single 3d one in your brain.
In this case, however, your eyes aren't being forced to see anything other than what they would normally see. Both your eyes' focal distance and convergence distance will always be the same... the distance from you to the screen. You will either see a blurry image, much like you would at a 3d theater without wearing any glasses, or else a fully 3d image... depending on how far apart the views are that your eyes are actually receiving.
Again, this is only because your eyes aren't being force-fed only one particular viewing angle.
That's not the reason to not want one's work pirated.
The reason a copyright holder should have reasonable objection to somebody pirating their work, whether or not they were ever going to pay for it, is because it encroaches on the copying rights that are supposed to be exclusively at the purview of the content maker.
Revenue is completely irrelevant to this point. When somebody pirates a work, the value that the content maker might have otherwise had in their exclusivity (which is what copyright itself is supposed to entail) is compromised, and there does exist at least some merit in the notion that they ought to be financially compensated for that loss of control.
But the matter with regards to content publication has always been about distributive control. As copying technologies have advanced through the ages, however, the mere social contract of copyright since its inception, which essentially amounts to the notion that society will honor the content maker's desire for exclusive control over copies in exchange for access to the work, has been breaking down. Society began to stop respecting their side of the contract, and ignored the content maker's desire for exclusive rights on determining who should be permitted to make copies. Publishers, in response, began artificially contriving schemes which made their works arguably marginally more difficult to copy, but would have an unforseeable impact on the work's availability, as legitimate consumers may find they cannot utilize the works as they intended because of copy protection being in the way.
Copyright is dissolving... which is unfortunate, because at least it was a contract that society had some control over. What is replacing it now, however... is something which consumers will have no control over... DRM and other types of censorship that keep consumers from accessing the content.
All they need now is services called "Lose" and "Weep".
If people are their product, then wouldn't that make Google guilty of human trafficking?
No... we won't know. Because its power will have been exhuasted and we won't be able to tell that it has actually stopped in the first place.
Ostriches do not stick their heads in sand or ever try to simply ignore danger.
Ostriches are not cowardly, they will definitely put up a fight when they believe they have a good chance of winning. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you probably realize that they are big-ass birds that could easily wipe the floor with a good percentage of other creatures in the animal kingdom. If they encounter a situation that they cannot mitigate, however, then they will run away... being exceptionally good at it (they are the fastest running creature on two legs).
If, and only if, they have nowhere to run to, and they cannot mitigate the danger themselves, then they will lie very still, presumably in the hope that they will be ignored. They do not pretend that the danger is not there, however... and will generally resort to fleeing at the first opportunity. Their practice of lying still is where the myth that they stick their head in the sand comes from, and it's ironic that what is actually a very atypical behavior for that type of bird ever got to be somehow associated as something that they generally practice.
Of course not.
My point is that eventually, they might just assume that anyone is liable to lie about their own age, and a more objective form of proof is going to be required.
Such as DRM.
Just before the turn of the century, our household was offered the opportunity to be part of the Nielson ratings.
Owing to remembering all-too-often experience as a youth, when I would start to watch new shows that I really liked, only to see them cancelled before they finished even half a season, let alone established any kind of closure for the events in the show, simply on account of poor ratings, I believed that the chance to be actively involved in measuring the my involvement in the shows that I liked would finally be my opportunity for my voice to be heard. Certainly, since every member in a Nielson home represents a viewership of something on the order of 10,000 or more viewers in other households, I figured that if records were actually being kept about which shows that I watch, and this information was handed to the neworks, then the chance of a show that I liked being cancelled was bound to be that much less.
They hooked up devices to all of our video equipment, to record not only which stations we were watching, but also which programs we were recording. The logging-in procedure was perhaps the most tedious aspect, having to be repeated every couple of hours if the TV was still on to ensure that people were still actually there, but I still found it reassuring that my votes were counting for something. Each member of our household was assigned a unique button on the set-top box which represented that individual's viewership, so that they could track demographics for a show and not just whether or not a program was simply being watched. When our niece came to live with us in 2000, they assigned her a button as well.
Then, in 2003. the first new show I was really interested in since we started being a Nielson household came on the air on what was then called the "UPN network", Jake 2.0. All 6 of us in my family enjoyed the show, and watched it religiously every week. Alas, however, it was cancelled after 16 episodes.
I was quite upset about this. Finally the few TV shows that I actually watched were actually being noted by people who had influence to affect the program, and when a new show comes on that I really like and watch every single week, the show gets cancelled anyway.
I called up our regional contact person later that same week and told her that I wanted the stuff pulled out of our equipment... that we were resigning. She was disappointed to hear it, and attempted to tell me that contrary to my beliefs, my voice was really being heard, but as it apparently didn't make any difference to the outcome, I ended it then and there.
I remember saying to the tech person as they were dismantling the equipment from out TV and VCR, however, that I thought they should probably start expanding their facilities to include Internet usage. He nodded in agreement with me while he worked, saying that it would be a good idea, but that he felt the technology wasn't quite ready to make that practical.
The human brain can break a digital lock... all you need is a pencil, a pad of paper, and time.
Copyright is a contract. It is an exchange between society and the content maker for the latter to have (limited) exclusive copying rights on the work in exchange for the content maker to actually distribute it to the general public in the first place. The content maker could just as easily self-censor, or restrict their audience to a hand-selected set of people... but the concept of copyright was to enrich society (in fact, the threat of this happening in the aftermath of the invention of the printing press played no small part in the rationale for copyright in the first place). Oddly enough, DRM is really just another form of self-censorship... since it limits people's access to the content under terms that the content maker controls, and there can be no doubt that it's just as much of a violation of the underlying copyright contract as society not respecting it is.
Although I don't abide by publishers that utilize DRM for a second, for what it's worth... once a DRM'd work does fall into public domain (some 100 or so years later), at least it won't be any violation of the DMCA to break the lock on that work.
If that were the case, then piracy incidence would rise with increased publisher lockdowns or more restrictive copyright terms. That's not the case. In fact, there's no statistically significant correlation between such changes to copyright terms and piracy. Rather, piracy incidence has risen entirely monotonically with the widespread availability of consumer technologies that gave them the ability to easily copy. The easier copying became, the more piracy happened. It's not a a direct functional relationship, but there's definitely a statistically significant positive correlation.
Nowhere did I allege that I was referring only to digital media or file sharing on the internet.
How long is it before that's countered with the notion that not taking some measures to prevent people from lying about their age could be construed as allow underage people to use the services.
At least in a bar, you have to show some real ID... they won't just ask you your age and be satisfied with the answer if you look like you might be under the legal drinking age.
You seem to be under the impression that copying is something that is relatively recent... or exclusive to the digital realm.
It isn't.... there is a long history of analog piracy that is decades older than the DMCA... something that as newer technology was developed, the manufacturers were hoping to nip in the bud with legislation before it became an issue. (Didn't really work though, did it).
No. The issue with regards to not negatively impacting employee health and safety applies to *ALL* employers in BC, even "high tech professionals".
If you work at such a job, and you find that your working hours are affecting your health, you can file a complaint with the Director of Employment Standards. You had better have a fairly objective proof of your claim, however. This generally involves keeping a paper trail of how your health has been impacted over the course of time since excessive hours began, and will probably require confirmation by an outside medical professional, who can examine the evidence at hand and present their unbiased conclusions.
If the director finds that your claim has validity, they can and *WILL* impose hour restrictions on the company for how long they are allowed to let employees work, bringing it right down to the standard 40-hour week, 8 hours per day for an indeterminate period of time. Of course, the company may be just as liable to simply dismiss somebody who they feel may be likely to file such a complaint, coming up with a convenient plausible excuse before it is ever an issue.
DRM is about distributive control... but they've always had distributive control in one form or another anyways.
The purpose of DRM is to supplement the diminishing faith that the content makers have traditionally placed in the strength of the copyright claim alone to keep people from copying the work without authorization.
As copying has gotten easier and easier, the mere social contract between publisher and community, which essentially says that the latter will not copy it without permission, effectively granting the publisher a form of distributive control, has started to break down... people are no longer adhering to their side of that contract, and so it is inevitable that publishers will seek alternative means to protect their interests.
Before copyright itself, effective distributive control still existed for people who made content because the work involved in making a copy was very time consuming and difficult. At the very least, it involved sufficient manual labor and errors in reproduction that the counterfeits rarely obtained as much notoriety as the originals. This is hardly the circumstance today, where it's pretty much an an everyday occurrence to see movies that wer3e just released up on Pirate Bay within days or sometimes hours of release, for download by anybody who simply doesn't want to pay the cash to see it in the theater.
Ideally, yes...
Unfortunately, the people who don't give a damn about DRM, which is a staggering majority, don't generally care what the people who loathe DRM think about it, even if it's only because they aren't technically competent enough to understand all of the ramifications... and trying to explain it to them is not terribly unlike trying to educate a dead tree on the merits of your political views. So that' s the flaw in your otherwise very reasonable-sounding plan.
BC Employment Standards Law, section 39. "Despite any provision of this Part, an employer must not require or directly or indirectly allow an employee to work excessive hours which are detrimental to the employee's health or safety". This even includes so-called "high technology professionals".
I used to get A's in mathematics... What happened?
That illegal activities outnumber legal ones by about a factor of 500 to 1?
Is it iillegal to import, without authorization, a cell phone that has been entirely legally unlocked outside of the jurisdiction where cell phone unlocking is prohibited?
The only reason it would ever be nearly impossible for objective journalism to cover this is if there was some sort of cover-up in the first place. Which, gosh-darn-it... sounds *JUST* like a conspiracy theory.
Pot, meet kettle. All I see from the summary submitter is something that they wanted to see, not necessarily a reflection of what actually happened. Maybe it did... but it's jumping to conclusions based on irrational belief, intuition, or a hunch. It's not unbiased reporting.
Besides... EA themselves stated that they believe such outrcries to be nothing more than the loud outbursts of a minority, albeit a very vocal one.
If consumer retaliation over such games actually played some part in this turn of events, then it stands to reason that would be endeavoring to learn from their mistakes. But they are showing no intention of changing their behavior, which suggests that they weren't that negatively impacted by the consumer outcry. Which suggests that the notion they are firing their CEO over it may be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the person who posted the summary..