Nobody is not buying a Wii because its too expensive. They're not buying it because they either aren't interested in it, or they already have one.
If you want to Boost Revenue, make games that use the new Motion Plus - which apparently makes the controller that much more accurate and versatile.
Then, when people see a Zelda Game where your Bow & Arrow are handled physically by your hands, and your sword slashes are your actual movements, everyone will instantly want it, and I can bet they'd shell out the $50 for Wii Sports Resort just to get the attachment.
I know eh? Us guys in IT, we have to handle alot. All those log files, so little time to sift through them all. How do you find the problem? I mean if only there was a program to help us sort through it --
Oh hey, whats this ad for? Splunk?
Could that handle Travel, hotel, and airline records that the FBI have been gathering?
Its inconvenient when you are browsing on the fly - where you want to be able to click on the URL bar or switch tabs constantly when hovering the mouse at the top of the screen is required to see the menu areas.
When I go from Slashdot, to my Gmail, to RedvsBlue, to facebook, I want to be able to see those tabs and just click them when I want to switch, not learn a new hot-key or add a keypress or wait for the hover action to kick in.
Point is - FF and IE have perfectly fine layouts as it is, and changing the way things are set up is only confusing to the people who already use the product.
Of course for office applications where certain functions will be commonly used it makes it easier for the average user. But those people rarely need to do anything out of the ordinary in a browser, so why change it? They won't be making the trip to Tools: Internet options more intuitive for someone who never needs to go in there.
See, I get it for Microsoft Office. Its alot user intuitive for users to find the save and print and formating buttons with the ribbon system they've got set up. Good for that.
But seriously, when was the last time I used the menu bar in any browser? I enter a URL... I browse... I close it when I'm done...
I hate clutter at the top of the sceen, eating up valuable viewing space for bigger pictures and such. I was upset when IE snuck a Search Toolbar in there without me really asking - since its automatically set to search if the URL doesn't resolve to anything... But whatever, removed it and got over it.
Now they want to take that less than an inch menu bar and make it take up 2 inches of my screen so that I can NEVER use it. Besides the fact that I never find a need to go in there, everything will be relayed out and I probably won't be able to find what I'm looking for when I do need to.
Did they state that they're leaving it to you? Did Kirby Sr give the rights to Kirby Jr? If he doesn't explicitly say anywhere to hand them over - why wouldn't any copyrights go to the other founders, or people who actually work on the IP?
I don't know about you, but any company that feels the only way they can sell their product is to basically slander their competitors isn't likely to get my attention.
And from the blog thats linked:
Way, way back when, Nominum employees successfully performed a denial of service attack on PowerDNS. I thought they had grown over this kind of behavior, but it appears they didn't.
I hope no one goes to Nominum, they play dirty. I don't think the internet needs to be more dirty, what with all the scammers out there, both hackers and ISP's alike.
Being able to introduce a method of exercise that is genuinely fun for all and doesn't require extra time on top of our daily activities, as long as it's done sensibly and cleverly, could be a crucial step towards reducing obesity.
The problem is though that alot of people who play these kinds of games are either of the Age where they don't care about their physical form - or they just got home from a hard days work and don't have the energy to run while gaming.
They've got this thing called a will for things like the house and money.
If its not stated in there, the state can take it for all I care.
I don't think he doesn't have rights to claim, I just don't see WHY he is, other than money, which he didn't earn himself. My parents could have millions, I wouldn't want any of it when they pass away.
It DOES do what its goal is. The idea is that you are sending something over the cloud, or a P2P networking system. Any number of hackers, Crackers, sniffers or whatever could tap in and get your data. So we designed Encryption, take that Hackers! Problem is, hackers are finding ways to break through encryption mainly by, finding the key which is usually transfered somewhere attached to the encrypted message, or even sent through a seperate protocol.
What Vanish does it take the Encrypted message, and send it. The key is then dispersed amongst A whole lot of computers in the Cloud, so no one computer has the whole key. When the trusted reciever wants to decrypt, they've got to go through Vanish and get the whole key. Vanish sets it up so that parts of the key will delete itself over time, thus destroying the message after a certain point. So even if someone managed to find half of the key in a day by hacking the P2P system and searching through all the computers for the key its looking for, it might not be quick enough and the rest of the key will be lost.
What the researchers are saying is that using their new system they set up, the Keys aren't being destroyed. Whenever one computer gets a part of the Key, it stores it. Then because its masquerading as a large number of PC's, it will eventually get many parts of that key, and voila, it has the whole key, stored on that computer.
Vanish is saying that they're adding complexity by making Vanish use different file sharing networks - but UnVanish is claiming that while it makes the attack a little more expensive - it doesn't change the fundamental flaw that the key can still be found this way.
It's an interesting story - but the one thing that sets it aside is that the cameras were fundamental in the charging him for his crime, possibly even the capture.
In the full article, it doesn't say what the 700,000 dollars are for. Its a little sketchy on what can be claimed as the "Damage Caused" and whether or not the money is for the systems (and security checks) to be implemented after his breach.
Whereas you had to set up a Camera to catch the criminal, the US Government caught their criminal and now want to put up the camera. Two different scenarios, which can appear to be so similar that distinguishing who should pay what gets a little fuzzy.
Peter Sommer (the expert refered to in the article), is basically saying that the security should have already have been implemented. In your case, you can argue that you shouldn't require cameras to be set up in your garage as a basic security measure. Closing and locking doors and windows should be enough.
Basically the Government did not have a firewall or any security systems in place at all to stop someone from Remoting in. Thats like leaving your door open, and expecting someone not to enter without permission. Someone walks inside, does that constitute as breaking and entering?
The "Hacker" used a popular program used for technical support to log into a computer. My ISP can't even do that, and all because I have 60 dollars Linksys router at home (not even a firewall), which BY DEFAULT blocks any incoming traffic on those ports.
That is like placing a lock on your door, which is pretty standard. Which the government didn't do, and is now trying to claim almost 3 quarters of a million dollars for.
Because he can and he should. What's the point of licensing a character if the licensee could wait for you to die and say "ha ha" and continue using that character?
But no one would ever DO that. I mean, do you think of it as "I'll just wait for my parents to die and then I'll have everything they owned!" ? Its a ludicrous claim, and the "Should because he Can" arguement has so many holes you should jump off a bridge (because you can).
Probably, but hey what's wrong with that? You don't seem to mind the movie studios making money from the characters. He most likely would like to protect the legacy of the comic book characters, and as a consequence the continued value of the character in the comic book marketplace.
No, I don't mind movie studio's making money off the characters. You know why? They MAKE MOVIES. They make something for me to enjoy out of them. I'd much rather have someone try to make a film on a character I like, and if I don't like it I don't like it. Rather then have someone "Protect" the character by not allowing any new development.
So? What's the point of building an estate if you can't pass it to your children?
For YOURSELF to enjoy. Giving your child a Million dollars doesn't teach them any values or Work Ethic. I don't think Kirby drew the comics with the idea in mind that they'll be his children's some day.
How so? His father actually created the comic book characters, not patented them and wait for something to come up with a similar idea.
I see nothing wrong here. The movie studios are having to follow the rules that THEY created...
His father created the comic book characters, not him. He had nothing to do with them, as far as my knowledge. Someone who goes out and patents something at least went out and patented something. On one case you've got someone sitting on a couch, then getting a patent. On the other you've got someone who went to get a patent, and then is sitting on the couch.
I don't see anything "WRONG" here either, rules are rules, and if thats the way the industry works, thats the way it works. I just don't see WHY Kirby JR is doing this - my original question.
And the only motive I see is to get money, which is "wrong" because its Greedy when he didn't do any work for it.
I disagree - I think the rights being property of "some soul-less corporation" will do more good then being in the hands of the SON of the artist.
The Son has no incentive to do anything with it, and he probably doesn't have the capital to pull it off either.
If Marvel Comic books were to remain a completely untouched timeless classic to be enjoyed by just readers, than I wouldn't mind the rights going to the son because the books would remain such a way.
But being in the hands of a corporation you get Movies and TV Series and Video Games and other forms of entertainment based on these works. I don't know about you, but I liked the Ironman Movie. I liked the first 2 Spiderman Movies.
Whats so bad about them being in the hands of a corporation?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is not buying a Wii because its too expensive. They're not buying it because they either aren't interested in it, or they already have one.
If you want to Boost Revenue, make games that use the new Motion Plus - which apparently makes the controller that much more accurate and versatile.
Then, when people see a Zelda Game where your Bow & Arrow are handled physically by your hands, and your sword slashes are your actual movements, everyone will instantly want it, and I can bet they'd shell out the $50 for Wii Sports Resort just to get the attachment.
Futureshop Price Guarantee?
10 Bucks says it comes down to a cat on the keyboard.
I know eh? Us guys in IT, we have to handle alot. All those log files, so little time to sift through them all. How do you find the problem? I mean if only there was a program to help us sort through it --
Oh hey, whats this ad for? Splunk?
Could that handle Travel, hotel, and airline records that the FBI have been gathering?
Its inconvenient when you are browsing on the fly - where you want to be able to click on the URL bar or switch tabs constantly when hovering the mouse at the top of the screen is required to see the menu areas.
When I go from Slashdot, to my Gmail, to RedvsBlue, to facebook, I want to be able to see those tabs and just click them when I want to switch, not learn a new hot-key or add a keypress or wait for the hover action to kick in.
Point is - FF and IE have perfectly fine layouts as it is, and changing the way things are set up is only confusing to the people who already use the product.
Of course for office applications where certain functions will be commonly used it makes it easier for the average user. But those people rarely need to do anything out of the ordinary in a browser, so why change it? They won't be making the trip to Tools: Internet options more intuitive for someone who never needs to go in there.
See, I get it for Microsoft Office. Its alot user intuitive for users to find the save and print and formating buttons with the ribbon system they've got set up. Good for that.
But seriously, when was the last time I used the menu bar in any browser? I enter a URL... I browse... I close it when I'm done...
I hate clutter at the top of the sceen, eating up valuable viewing space for bigger pictures and such. I was upset when IE snuck a Search Toolbar in there without me really asking - since its automatically set to search if the URL doesn't resolve to anything... But whatever, removed it and got over it.
Now they want to take that less than an inch menu bar and make it take up 2 inches of my screen so that I can NEVER use it. Besides the fact that I never find a need to go in there, everything will be relayed out and I probably won't be able to find what I'm looking for when I do need to.
Did they state that they're leaving it to you? Did Kirby Sr give the rights to Kirby Jr? If he doesn't explicitly say anywhere to hand them over - why wouldn't any copyrights go to the other founders, or people who actually work on the IP?
When someone on /. Reads TFA and links a Car analogy - does that cancel each other out?
I don't know about you, but any company that feels the only way they can sell their product is to basically slander their competitors isn't likely to get my attention.
And from the blog thats linked:
Way, way back when, Nominum employees successfully performed a denial of service attack on PowerDNS. I thought they had grown over this kind of behavior, but it appears they didn't.
I hope no one goes to Nominum, they play dirty. I don't think the internet needs to be more dirty, what with all the scammers out there, both hackers and ISP's alike.
Might have been able to pass it off as Physical training on the job.
Hop over to Iran and slam Mohammed. See how your Free Speech is handled.
The friendly overlord defines what you can and cannot say. Disobey and be killed.
Nice Try though.
Do you feel as though you have a right to the house simply because your parents owned it?
Legally it'll work, morally its wrong.
Being able to introduce a method of exercise that is genuinely fun for all and doesn't require extra time on top of our daily activities, as long as it's done sensibly and cleverly, could be a crucial step towards reducing obesity.
The problem is though that alot of people who play these kinds of games are either of the Age where they don't care about their physical form - or they just got home from a hard days work and don't have the energy to run while gaming.
They've got this thing called a will for things like the house and money.
If its not stated in there, the state can take it for all I care.
I don't think he doesn't have rights to claim, I just don't see WHY he is, other than money, which he didn't earn himself. My parents could have millions, I wouldn't want any of it when they pass away.
No one is saying he's not guilty - it's about what he should be paying for.
Gary Is not Innocent because an administrator forgot to secure a machine.
He is guilty.
But it is not Gary's responsibility to ensure the machine is secure in the future.
That is the debate.
McKinnon had used Remotely Anywhere, a software tool, generally used in Tech support to assist customers.
They did not block the ports of it, or have anything to stop the installation of the software.
Its not just 1 hole, but fixing any 1 of the holes would have stopped that kind of attack.
So what happens when Everyone has a Doomsday machine and just ONE of them gets set off?
That IS a Creepy thought. Unless Doomsday can detect location of Origin, and decide accordingly. I bet Washington's Co-ordinates are hardcoded though.
It DOES do what its goal is. The idea is that you are sending something over the cloud, or a P2P networking system. Any number of hackers, Crackers, sniffers or whatever could tap in and get your data. So we designed Encryption, take that Hackers! Problem is, hackers are finding ways to break through encryption mainly by, finding the key which is usually transfered somewhere attached to the encrypted message, or even sent through a seperate protocol.
What Vanish does it take the Encrypted message, and send it. The key is then dispersed amongst A whole lot of computers in the Cloud, so no one computer has the whole key. When the trusted reciever wants to decrypt, they've got to go through Vanish and get the whole key. Vanish sets it up so that parts of the key will delete itself over time, thus destroying the message after a certain point. So even if someone managed to find half of the key in a day by hacking the P2P system and searching through all the computers for the key its looking for, it might not be quick enough and the rest of the key will be lost.
What the researchers are saying is that using their new system they set up, the Keys aren't being destroyed. Whenever one computer gets a part of the Key, it stores it. Then because its masquerading as a large number of PC's, it will eventually get many parts of that key, and voila, it has the whole key, stored on that computer.
Vanish is saying that they're adding complexity by making Vanish use different file sharing networks - but UnVanish is claiming that while it makes the attack a little more expensive - it doesn't change the fundamental flaw that the key can still be found this way.
It's an interesting story - but the one thing that sets it aside is that the cameras were fundamental in the charging him for his crime, possibly even the capture.
In the full article, it doesn't say what the 700,000 dollars are for. Its a little sketchy on what can be claimed as the "Damage Caused" and whether or not the money is for the systems (and security checks) to be implemented after his breach.
Whereas you had to set up a Camera to catch the criminal, the US Government caught their criminal and now want to put up the camera. Two different scenarios, which can appear to be so similar that distinguishing who should pay what gets a little fuzzy.
Peter Sommer (the expert refered to in the article), is basically saying that the security should have already have been implemented. In your case, you can argue that you shouldn't require cameras to be set up in your garage as a basic security measure. Closing and locking doors and windows should be enough.
Basically the Government did not have a firewall or any security systems in place at all to stop someone from Remoting in. Thats like leaving your door open, and expecting someone not to enter without permission. Someone walks inside, does that constitute as breaking and entering?
The "Hacker" used a popular program used for technical support to log into a computer. My ISP can't even do that, and all because I have 60 dollars Linksys router at home (not even a firewall), which BY DEFAULT blocks any incoming traffic on those ports.
That is like placing a lock on your door, which is pretty standard. Which the government didn't do, and is now trying to claim almost 3 quarters of a million dollars for.
Repaying any damage he would have caused: Expected.
Going to Jail for his actions: Expected.
Paying 700,000 Dollars to fix the hole he DISCOVERED (not created): Unlawful.
Because he can and he should. What's the point of licensing a character if the licensee could wait for you to die and say "ha ha" and continue using that character?
But no one would ever DO that. I mean, do you think of it as "I'll just wait for my parents to die and then I'll have everything they owned!" ? Its a ludicrous claim, and the "Should because he Can" arguement has so many holes you should jump off a bridge (because you can).
Probably, but hey what's wrong with that? You don't seem to mind the movie studios making money from the characters. He most likely would like to protect the legacy of the comic book characters, and as a consequence the continued value of the character in the comic book marketplace.
No, I don't mind movie studio's making money off the characters. You know why? They MAKE MOVIES. They make something for me to enjoy out of them. I'd much rather have someone try to make a film on a character I like, and if I don't like it I don't like it. Rather then have someone "Protect" the character by not allowing any new development.
So? What's the point of building an estate if you can't pass it to your children?
For YOURSELF to enjoy. Giving your child a Million dollars doesn't teach them any values or Work Ethic. I don't think Kirby drew the comics with the idea in mind that they'll be his children's some day.
How so? His father actually created the comic book characters, not patented them and wait for something to come up with a similar idea.
I see nothing wrong here. The movie studios are having to follow the rules that THEY created...
His father created the comic book characters, not him. He had nothing to do with them, as far as my knowledge. Someone who goes out and patents something at least went out and patented something. On one case you've got someone sitting on a couch, then getting a patent. On the other you've got someone who went to get a patent, and then is sitting on the couch.
I don't see anything "WRONG" here either, rules are rules, and if thats the way the industry works, thats the way it works. I just don't see WHY Kirby JR is doing this - my original question.
And the only motive I see is to get money, which is "wrong" because its Greedy when he didn't do any work for it.
I disagree - I think the rights being property of "some soul-less corporation" will do more good then being in the hands of the SON of the artist.
The Son has no incentive to do anything with it, and he probably doesn't have the capital to pull it off either.
If Marvel Comic books were to remain a completely untouched timeless classic to be enjoyed by just readers, than I wouldn't mind the rights going to the son because the books would remain such a way.
But being in the hands of a corporation you get Movies and TV Series and Video Games and other forms of entertainment based on these works. I don't know about you, but I liked the Ironman Movie. I liked the first 2 Spiderman Movies.
Whats so bad about them being in the hands of a corporation?
Why?
What is Mr Kirby Jr's stance on all this? Does he want money?
He didn't do any of the work, he just inherited copyrights.
Worse than a patent troll.
Wrap some scotch tape around an earphone.
Wait, was this technology supposed to make things more convenient?