Worse yet, the hubris to name the method after yourself.
Yeah, even John Nash didn't do that with the Nash Equilibrium. He just called it an "equilibrium point" and let the mathematical community decide he was worthy of having it named for him.
In any event, it's not hubris to get excited about something you invented that you didn't know existed before. It's ignorance.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Going so far as to publish a paper describing something he is expected to have learned in high school or at least in college is over the top.
Its pretty bad that the peer review didn't catch it either...
Well, we're taking Diabetes Care at their word that they actually perform the peer review.
>>His hubris must be punished by way of an Internet meme.
Tai me up?
Tai your shoelaces?
A meme need not be a pun. How about whenever someone says something obvious as though it were a novel discovery, we reply with, "That must be the topic of Dr. Tai's next paper," or "I see you've read Dr. Tai's latest paper"?
Your advice is dangerous because you're telling him to fight against legal notice which he almost certainly has no chance of succeeding with and if he does take it all the way to court, it would probably destroy him as he really does not have a leg to stand on.
I think he does have a leg to stand on. Remember when Apple sued Microsoft for copying the "look and feel" of Mac OS into MS Windows?? The judge said "look and feel" was not copyrightable and threw the whole thing out. If the original poster is being honest about not directly copying any art, graphics, sounds or text (including source or object code), then he'll be in a similar situation. If anything, it would be a mistake to go to court because even if he wins he'll still be out all his court costs, not because he'll most likely lose.
So to the person asking the original question in the summary- if you want to know what you did wrong theres your answer. The worst thing you can do is fight this, because legally, you seem to be completely in the wrong, and will hence almost certainly lose.
The best thing you can do is start to fight it, then negotiate for Namco to give you permission in exchange for a cut. If you play your cards right it will work, I've seen it happen before with lawsuits which were even clearer slam-dunks for the copyright holder than this would be (i.e. the little guy had literally cut and pasted text from the original product, but the big guy didn't want to look like a bully so they negotiated a strategic partnership in the middle of the lawsuit and settled).
Having looked at the link I would like to basically retract what I've said above, particularly the bold portions, which were predicated on the assumption that "no original artwork or sound has been copied" was actually a true statement. Given that all the artwork, perhaps among other things, was copied, you're basically screwed.
It's also been pointed out to me that what I put forth as an attempt at counterpoint could be read as legal advice. Therefore, disclaimer: IANAL, and if I were I wouldn't be representing you over the internet, so go to a real attorney, and don't rely on what I've said or anything else you read on Slashdot except the advice to go to a real attorney.
That's a fair point. But it's also interesting, because such redaction seems at odds with the 'statement of purpose' quoted above, to which I originally replied. There, Assange doesn't say that his intent is to inhibit the keeping of secrets that shouldn't be kept; he explicitly states his intent to inhibit the keeping of secrets *at all*.
I'm not sure he "explicitly states" quite that. At least if you're going by what Homburg originally quoted, Assange explicitly states that he wants to impose a "secrecy tax" and that he wants to replace more secretive regimes with more open ones. It's a bit of a leap of logic to go from there to assuming he wants no secrets; I read it as "the secrecy tax should be large enough that governments only keep secret that which is essential to their mission, and no more." That seems to be in keeping with Wikileaks' behavior of both releasing documents and making redactions, and I find it to be a laudable position. Basically, fight the terrorists and keep the secrets needed to do so, but don't drag us into wars that you claim are fighting terrorists while really murdering innocent people, 'cause there's a tax on that.
So far we haven't actually seen ANY downsides of the wikileaks...
* We saw a german official get fired for leaking information to a foreign state
* We saw the Yemeni government conspiring to lie to its people
* We saw the UK foregin office trying to lie to the UK parliament about breaking international commitments on cluster bombs
* US secretary of defense Bob Gates explained that the leaks haven't hurt the US
There have ben only upsides so far.
We've also seen the true colors of the mainstream media as pundits who claim to support free speech and free press call for government-sponsored assassination of those actually exercising these freedoms.
The question is essentially whether one believes that governments should ever keep secrets. The position of Assange, and most people here, appears to be "no, they shouldn't, ever." The kindest thing I can say about that position is that it's naive.
If that were their position, why would they redact anything at all?
This is precisely the outcome that Wikileaks was looking for: Assange's plan has been to leak information in order to make those who wish to keep secrets paranoid, so that they clamp down on their own internal communications and become less effective:
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
I'm sorry, but the next time someone pops the question about why so many hate Assange as opposed to Wikileaks, this is it. The man is crazy.
So steps will be taken to ensure secret information is even more tightly controlled, which is basically the goal in the first place, and "you win" ?
I don't know how you got that from the above-quoted text. It seems pretty clear from the discussion of a nonlinear "secrecy tax" that there's an extra step: the steps that will be taken make it too expensive to keep all that many secrets, so less secrets are kept. Then the proponents of government transparency win.
Yeah, but would Bradley Manning have figured out how to do anything of these things? Remember, this was the guy who thought listening to Lady Gaga at work was such a clever ruse.
Unless your game contains sprites/sounds etc. either ripped directly or falling into the category of "derivative work", a DMCA notice is just the cheapest way to get you offline, not a legally correct approach.
This is a pretty big "unless." Follow the link, look at his graphics, and see how derivative the graphics actually are. It's pretty hard to see it as non-infringing of the original Pac-man images.
Just because it's in the political interest of certain right-wing media organizations to regularly vilify them doesn't mean you have to mindlessly play along.
Because it is only correct to vilify them when the "right" is in ascendancy.
How about only vilifying them when they do bad things?
at present, the education system does not have any formal and systematic method to deal with death in class. If death were introduced in the education system, children would have a more real and intense approach to life, and many of the problems derived from the mourning process in the adulthood would be prevented.
I hope they mean the topic of death rather than death itself. I don't really want our teachers killing anybody as an object lesson.
But then that would give them a perfect opening to discuss the topic, wouldn't it??
Heaven is a terribly boring place, Hell is suffering, I would rather take another chance at life and Re-incarnate, of course it would be nice to retain ALL my memories of the past life so I could learn from experience and not make the same mistakes twice.
My experience is that that doesn't even work with mistakes from the same life. I find myself calling to mind memories of mistakes I've made only after making them again all the time.
The words "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" are by Milton originally, spoken by his Satan. Milton didn't write Paradise Lost as a piece of Christian fiction - given how heavily influenced he was by Greek and Pagan ideas and how much of that shows in the poem. Amusingly, he is still the main source for the popular picture of hell and Satan.
Also, historical allegory about Cromwell and the English Civil War is mixed in there too. It gets really complicated, and yet some people feel comfortable pulling their Christian theology directly from there.
Of course, if you're an atheist, you could argue that it's not an immoral decision to *pretend* to be religious, for the perks. In some countries the "perks" include staying alive.
You *could* argue that, but the vast majority of atheists I've met believe it's immoral to deceive in order to profit at the expense of others. So to stay alive, fine, but to rake in the dough, not so much.
(Warning for Mac using Grammar elites: Run on sentence)
Since when is it "elite" to insist on proper use of the language? Well, I'm anti-Mac and agree with your sentiment, so your warning doesn't apply and I can pick apart your grammar: 1st, that's not actually a run-on sentence. Your dependent clauses are properly subordinated with prepositions, although your use of "but" is questionable. 2nd, your use of "whom" is both incorrect and highly pretentious. If you're going to go on about "elites" with "an air of smugness about them" you shouldn't try to assume the same air of smugness by using archaic words like "whom", particularly where such words grammatically don't belong.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse yet, the hubris to name the method after yourself.
Yeah, even John Nash didn't do that with the Nash Equilibrium. He just called it an "equilibrium point" and let the mathematical community decide he was worthy of having it named for him.
In any event, it's not hubris to get excited about something you invented that you didn't know existed before. It's ignorance.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Going so far as to publish a paper describing something he is expected to have learned in high school or at least in college is over the top. Its pretty bad that the peer review didn't catch it either...
Well, we're taking Diabetes Care at their word that they actually perform the peer review.
>>His hubris must be punished by way of an Internet meme.
Tai me up?
Tai your shoelaces?
A meme need not be a pun. How about whenever someone says something obvious as though it were a novel discovery, we reply with, "That must be the topic of Dr. Tai's next paper," or "I see you've read Dr. Tai's latest paper"?
Your advice is dangerous because you're telling him to fight against legal notice which he almost certainly has no chance of succeeding with and if he does take it all the way to court, it would probably destroy him as he really does not have a leg to stand on.
I think he does have a leg to stand on. Remember when Apple sued Microsoft for copying the "look and feel" of Mac OS into MS Windows?? The judge said "look and feel" was not copyrightable and threw the whole thing out. If the original poster is being honest about not directly copying any art, graphics, sounds or text (including source or object code), then he'll be in a similar situation. If anything, it would be a mistake to go to court because even if he wins he'll still be out all his court costs, not because he'll most likely lose.
So to the person asking the original question in the summary- if you want to know what you did wrong theres your answer. The worst thing you can do is fight this, because legally, you seem to be completely in the wrong, and will hence almost certainly lose.
The best thing you can do is start to fight it, then negotiate for Namco to give you permission in exchange for a cut. If you play your cards right it will work, I've seen it happen before with lawsuits which were even clearer slam-dunks for the copyright holder than this would be (i.e. the little guy had literally cut and pasted text from the original product, but the big guy didn't want to look like a bully so they negotiated a strategic partnership in the middle of the lawsuit and settled).
Having looked at the link I would like to basically retract what I've said above, particularly the bold portions, which were predicated on the assumption that "no original artwork or sound has been copied" was actually a true statement. Given that all the artwork, perhaps among other things, was copied, you're basically screwed.
It's also been pointed out to me that what I put forth as an attempt at counterpoint could be read as legal advice. Therefore, disclaimer: IANAL, and if I were I wouldn't be representing you over the internet, so go to a real attorney, and don't rely on what I've said or anything else you read on Slashdot except the advice to go to a real attorney.
That's a fair point. But it's also interesting, because such redaction seems at odds with the 'statement of purpose' quoted above, to which I originally replied. There, Assange doesn't say that his intent is to inhibit the keeping of secrets that shouldn't be kept; he explicitly states his intent to inhibit the keeping of secrets *at all*.
I'm not sure he "explicitly states" quite that. At least if you're going by what Homburg originally quoted, Assange explicitly states that he wants to impose a "secrecy tax" and that he wants to replace more secretive regimes with more open ones. It's a bit of a leap of logic to go from there to assuming he wants no secrets; I read it as "the secrecy tax should be large enough that governments only keep secret that which is essential to their mission, and no more." That seems to be in keeping with Wikileaks' behavior of both releasing documents and making redactions, and I find it to be a laudable position. Basically, fight the terrorists and keep the secrets needed to do so, but don't drag us into wars that you claim are fighting terrorists while really murdering innocent people, 'cause there's a tax on that.
Well played, sir.
Sorry for the typos and incomplete sentences... it's late and I'm tired. One sentence should read "Zuhdi had a colleague vouch for him."
NP. I'm just happy to have cases to read about the issue.
So far we haven't actually seen ANY downsides of the wikileaks...
* We saw a german official get fired for leaking information to a foreign state * We saw the Yemeni government conspiring to lie to its people * We saw the UK foregin office trying to lie to the UK parliament about breaking international commitments on cluster bombs * US secretary of defense Bob Gates explained that the leaks haven't hurt the US
There have ben only upsides so far.
We've also seen the true colors of the mainstream media as pundits who claim to support free speech and free press call for government-sponsored assassination of those actually exercising these freedoms.
So we should invest in AMD then?
No, just keep your Core i7s to yourself.
The question is essentially whether one believes that governments should ever keep secrets. The position of Assange, and most people here, appears to be "no, they shouldn't, ever." The kindest thing I can say about that position is that it's naive.
If that were their position, why would they redact anything at all?
This is precisely the outcome that Wikileaks was looking for: Assange's plan has been to leak information in order to make those who wish to keep secrets paranoid, so that they clamp down on their own internal communications and become less effective:
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
I'm sorry, but the next time someone pops the question about why so many hate Assange as opposed to Wikileaks, this is it. The man is crazy. So steps will be taken to ensure secret information is even more tightly controlled, which is basically the goal in the first place, and "you win" ?
I don't know how you got that from the above-quoted text. It seems pretty clear from the discussion of a nonlinear "secrecy tax" that there's an extra step: the steps that will be taken make it too expensive to keep all that many secrets, so less secrets are kept. Then the proponents of government transparency win.
Yeah, but would Bradley Manning have figured out how to do anything of these things? Remember, this was the guy who thought listening to Lady Gaga at work was such a clever ruse.
Unless your game contains sprites/sounds etc. either ripped directly or falling into the category of "derivative work", a DMCA notice is just the cheapest way to get you offline, not a legally correct approach.
This is a pretty big "unless." Follow the link, look at his graphics, and see how derivative the graphics actually are. It's pretty hard to see it as non-infringing of the original Pac-man images.
A distant second is dying a horrible slow death, perhaps by starvation.
I'm guessing next comes being sued. "I should dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything else short of sickness and death." --Judge Learned Hand
Grad studies are worse than any kind of death. I experienced both.
Both kinds of death?
Because it is only correct to vilify them when the "right" is in ascendancy.
How about only vilifying them when they do bad things?
Death is inevitable. I don't fear taxes, and I don't fear death.
You must not be either a Libertarian or a Republican.
From the article:
at present, the education system does not have any formal and systematic method to deal with death in class. If death were introduced in the education system, children would have a more real and intense approach to life, and many of the problems derived from the mourning process in the adulthood would be prevented.
I hope they mean the topic of death rather than death itself. I don't really want our teachers killing anybody as an object lesson.
But then that would give them a perfect opening to discuss the topic, wouldn't it??
Good thing I know better than to match wits with a Sicilian, otherwise you'da really gotten me there.
Heaven is a terribly boring place, Hell is suffering, I would rather take another chance at life and Re-incarnate, of course it would be nice to retain ALL my memories of the past life so I could learn from experience and not make the same mistakes twice.
My experience is that that doesn't even work with mistakes from the same life. I find myself calling to mind memories of mistakes I've made only after making them again all the time.
The words "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" are by Milton originally, spoken by his Satan. Milton didn't write Paradise Lost as a piece of Christian fiction - given how heavily influenced he was by Greek and Pagan ideas and how much of that shows in the poem. Amusingly, he is still the main source for the popular picture of hell and Satan.
Also, historical allegory about Cromwell and the English Civil War is mixed in there too. It gets really complicated, and yet some people feel comfortable pulling their Christian theology directly from there.
Please never mention sex in the same sentence as "it's a trap!" again - horrifying mental images result!
What, you don't like to picture hot Dodonna-on-Ackbar action?
It's not easy making money off of religion.
Try telling that to L. Ron Hubbard.
Of course, if you're an atheist, you could argue that it's not an immoral decision to *pretend* to be religious, for the perks. In some countries the "perks" include staying alive.
You *could* argue that, but the vast majority of atheists I've met believe it's immoral to deceive in order to profit at the expense of others. So to stay alive, fine, but to rake in the dough, not so much.
(Warning for Mac using Grammar elites: Run on sentence)
Since when is it "elite" to insist on proper use of the language? Well, I'm anti-Mac and agree with your sentiment, so your warning doesn't apply and I can pick apart your grammar: 1st, that's not actually a run-on sentence. Your dependent clauses are properly subordinated with prepositions, although your use of "but" is questionable. 2nd, your use of "whom" is both incorrect and highly pretentious. If you're going to go on about "elites" with "an air of smugness about them" you shouldn't try to assume the same air of smugness by using archaic words like "whom", particularly where such words grammatically don't belong.
What about males who aren't gentlemen and females who aren't ladies?
They prefer each other.