Part of the problem is that patents are too long. In the 18th century having patents last as long as they do made sense as the pace of innovation wasn't that quick. Not like it is today.
I think we need a patent system, last thing I want to do is come up with some clever algorithm that solves a novel problem and only to be undercut by someone with far more resources and market presence that didn't have to do the work of actually implementing or even thinking up that idea. On the other hand I don't want to be cut out of the market because I infringed on someone else's bullshit patent.
I disagree with the premise they're making an example out of him, or anyone.
I just don't think they're that organized. I think they're grandstanding, plain and simple. Trying to look impressive and like they're doing something.
The problem with the state isn't this grand notion of state supremacy, well it is in some cases, but overall, it's the electoral system. The one where you can make your boss look bad if you're found to be "wasting tax payer money" by doing nothing or not screwing people to the wall hard enough.
Weev tried to sell this to gawker. The difference between the Swartz case and weev's case is that weev really fucked up. The fact that he's kind of a looney isn't helping his case much.
yes, according to Heller v. DC, which went against a LOT of precedence.
According to Alexander Hamilton...
If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia
You're advocating for armed insurrection. Which is so illegal the framers of the constitution listed it as one of the few crimes that are explicitly in the constitution.
I think there are two different things at play here.
First, intellectual works pre copyright were done by at the patronage of the wealthy. Also, being able to undercut someone else in the market by not being burdened with the cost of producing such copy written works is unfair.
That being said in the JSTOR/PACER cases, the cost of producing those many of those works were on the public dime to begin with. I don't think that it is appropriate to put those works behind a pay wall because we had already paid for them. Although JSTOR was a private entity, I don't think they had any right to be in the business of serving documents that were largely publicly funded.
I cheated through DQ IX on my second run through and got utterly destroyed by Psaro in one of the retro dungeons(also cheated so I could unlock the bloody thing; turns out not living near a place with a lot of JRPG fans means I wasn't going to unlock shit).
Consoles are about casual, accessable games, this is the core of the console market.
There are so many deficencies with console hardware it's not funny. This is why there still isn't a successful strategy game on consoles. To make truely in depth games (I refuse to call them "hardcore") you need a platform that is extensible, not a limited platform.
Dragon Quest is a casual game series? Get real.
Street Fighter x Tekken is strictly console only. Don't tell me it lacks "depth."
Watch some tournament videos sometime, go try to play as well as even low tier players and come talk to me.
You have no idea what you're talking about. At all. Okay so the GPUs and CPUs of the current generation of consoles haven't kept up. Big stinking deal.
That doesn't mean that consoles are relegated to "casual, accessible" games.
This is also assuming that inaccessibility means depth. Which is just stupid.
Street fighter is an arcade game, you might be too young to remember but street fighter debued in the arcade (the arcade is where you played casual games before the home console became popular, you're probably too young to remember this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter First released in the arcade in 1987.
Okay so I made a slip up but you didn't negate my point. Anything that has a screen, takes user input and maybe plays sound can have deep games or really shallow ones. Your insistance that PC gaming must be the one true path for hardcore is ridiculous.
This is how it is in the console world. It was dog eat dog. Nintendo ate Atari and Sega, Sony tried to eat nintendo... The first company to release a decent tablet/console hybrid will eat the others (smart monies on Nintendo, they seem to understand the market).
The console market does not abide competition. Having three players is the largest it's ever been and right now, two of those three players will have trouble staying in the game.
But that's not how it MUST be. In other markets, you can easily have multiple competitors and a reasonably healthy market. Not only can it happen, but it HAS happened in regionalized examples. In America, the Genesis made a lot of money for Sega while the Super Nintendo was making a LOT of money for Nintendo. In Japan, the PC Engine(AKA Turbo Grafx 16) was making pretty good money while the Famicom was absolutely DOMINATING that space. So was the Neo-Geo during both of these eras.
That's because you've got Pentax, Panasonic, Fijifilm, Olympus, Leica and many others competing in DLSR, Point and Shoot, Enthusiast and many other markets. Also Canon make more than just cameras. The only way this compares to consoles in when we ask "what happened to Kodak" and answer "they bet on film when the market went digital".
I picked one random example out of the air where there are multiple competitors and no one in the press is screaming that one MUST DOMINATE OR ELSE.
There's nothing special about games consoles that dictate that there is ONE true console and ONE true platform. Have good games, make more than you spend and make sure your follow up products don't suck or whither on the vine.
It's obvious you're young and haven't researched much about the console market, you might want to do that before making ill informed posts.
You clearly know nothing about gaming or the history of gaming. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Game consoles came out nearly simultaneously as PCs did. Game consoles meant you can have an arcade like experience at home. In fact, the Altair 8800 came out 3 years after the first console, the Magnavox Odyssey.
Game consoles were meant to play *games* and facilitate that goal, not be general purpose computers that are devilishly locking you out.
Seriously? Street Fighter? Final Fantasy? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? No More Heroes? The World Ends with You? *Dragon Quest*?
None of these games have "depth?" I think what you mean is "ridiculously thick manual and awful UI."
Anything that can plug into a display and spit sound out of it somehow can be full of casual or "teh hardcorez" gaming anyway. The PC, for example, is nothing but a final resting place for casual games and shovel ware and Pokemon is a ridiculously deeper game than it lets on.
If the traditional console is dead, then it is going the way of the arcade, screwed by the industry that spawned it or destroyed by non-gaming forces beyond it's control.
It's sad that we perpetuate myths, like consoles killed arcade games or there must be one dominant platform, so that way tech writers have something to write about and so fanboys can argue about these things.
It's funny, rarely in other industries do you ever hear that a product or product line will completely eviscerate another product. As far as I know, neither Canon or Nikon have wiped each other off the map nor do they have plans to.
Your solution to America's financial problems is massive cuts to spending, taxation, and then you're harping on the US Government's inability to pay it's debts?
Do you even hear yourself when you say these things?
What incentive? I don't know, maybe the satisfaction of doing something they love? Again, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "I'd love to do cool thing X but man the taxes do not make it worth it."
Also, very few people are advocating a 90% top marginal tax rate. It would solve some of our fiscal problems, but...
I hate replying to ACs but you put a lot of not thought into this.
Do you have any idea what this would do to our economic problems? It's like watching someone burning themselves alive and saying, "Hold on, I've got water" when what you really have is gasoline.
The fed could flood the market with money now, then cut things and keep us from going into inflationary periods later.
The reality is, is that the problem is cost cutting and malignancy of the wealthy classes. Profits have been up to record levels for years now and we're in a financial crisis?
Besides, most of our debt is to well, us. And we're good for the money. The problem is the debt ceiling and the fact that taxes are too low and the rent is too damned high(or alternatively that wages are also too damned low).
Western governments subsidize crops produced in their own countries and African producers can't compete because of those subsidies - that's not capitalism
You're both wrong. The notion that western governments allow for food to be destroyed willy nilly has been taken care of. That is just so ridiculous I have no idea.
However if we lived in a libertarian free enterprise utopia, the fact that there are massive problems with growing and political strife and upheaval still represents a massive externality. Get rid of the subsidy and we will still have abundance. Not as much as before, but we will not starve.
Why is it that people who want to scream about free markets never seem to make it far enough in Econ 101 to learn about simple concepts that sink their theories?
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem is that patents are too long. In the 18th century having patents last as long as they do made sense as the pace of innovation wasn't that quick. Not like it is today.
I think we need a patent system, last thing I want to do is come up with some clever algorithm that solves a novel problem and only to be undercut by someone with far more resources and market presence that didn't have to do the work of actually implementing or even thinking up that idea. On the other hand I don't want to be cut out of the market because I infringed on someone else's bullshit patent.
I disagree with the premise they're making an example out of him, or anyone.
I just don't think they're that organized. I think they're grandstanding, plain and simple. Trying to look impressive and like they're doing something.
The problem with the state isn't this grand notion of state supremacy, well it is in some cases, but overall, it's the electoral system. The one where you can make your boss look bad if you're found to be "wasting tax payer money" by doing nothing or not screwing people to the wall hard enough.
Weev tried to sell this to gawker. The difference between the Swartz case and weev's case is that weev really fucked up. The fact that he's kind of a looney isn't helping his case much.
So, no it hasn't lost it's mind.
yes, according to Heller v. DC, which went against a LOT of precedence.
According to Alexander Hamilton...
If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia
You're advocating for armed insurrection. Which is so illegal the framers of the constitution listed it as one of the few crimes that are explicitly in the constitution.
Why do you assume the good guy always wins? That's not how it goes in real life.
because your gun is going to stop another person's bullets?
I've always wondered how guns protect. Armor protects. Guns attack.
It also says, "Well regulated militia."
I think there are two different things at play here.
First, intellectual works pre copyright were done by at the patronage of the wealthy. Also, being able to undercut someone else in the market by not being burdened with the cost of producing such copy written works is unfair.
That being said in the JSTOR/PACER cases, the cost of producing those many of those works were on the public dime to begin with. I don't think that it is appropriate to put those works behind a pay wall because we had already paid for them. Although JSTOR was a private entity, I don't think they had any right to be in the business of serving documents that were largely publicly funded.
I cheated through DQ IX on my second run through and got utterly destroyed by Psaro in one of the retro dungeons(also cheated so I could unlock the bloody thing; turns out not living near a place with a lot of JRPG fans means I wasn't going to unlock shit).
Try again?
"Not as complex" isn't the same as "Casual."
Nice try trying to shoehorn Dragon Quest into the same game category as Bejewelled or Peggle.
My aging PC is "harder core" than them, most PCs you can buy cheap at Fry's are "harder core" these days.
Usually when I think hardcore these days, I think of anything that can run Excel and Word.
Yup. Sounds hardcore to me!
No, you went one further and proved my point.
Consoles are about casual, accessable games, this is the core of the console market.
There are so many deficencies with console hardware it's not funny. This is why there still isn't a successful strategy game on consoles. To make truely in depth games (I refuse to call them "hardcore") you need a platform that is extensible, not a limited platform.
Dragon Quest is a casual game series? Get real.
Street Fighter x Tekken is strictly console only. Don't tell me it lacks "depth."
Watch some tournament videos sometime, go try to play as well as even low tier players and come talk to me.
You have no idea what you're talking about. At all. Okay so the GPUs and CPUs of the current generation of consoles haven't kept up. Big stinking deal.
That doesn't mean that consoles are relegated to "casual, accessible" games.
This is also assuming that inaccessibility means depth. Which is just stupid.
Or I can take out my Xbox 1 and put the Xbox 1 game into it and play.
I mean, eventually there are going to be no working Xboxes, but, in the long run we're all dead.
Did anyone shed any tears that the SNES didn't support NES games?
Street fighter is an arcade game, you might be too young to remember but street fighter debued in the arcade (the arcade is where you played casual games before the home console became popular, you're probably too young to remember this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter First released in the arcade in 1987.
Okay so I made a slip up but you didn't negate my point. Anything that has a screen, takes user input and maybe plays sound can have deep games or really shallow ones. Your insistance that PC gaming must be the one true path for hardcore is ridiculous.
This is how it is in the console world. It was dog eat dog. Nintendo ate Atari and Sega, Sony tried to eat nintendo... The first company to release a decent tablet/console hybrid will eat the others (smart monies on Nintendo, they seem to understand the market).
The console market does not abide competition. Having three players is the largest it's ever been and right now, two of those three players will have trouble staying in the game.
But that's not how it MUST be. In other markets, you can easily have multiple competitors and a reasonably healthy market. Not only can it happen, but it HAS happened in regionalized examples. In America, the Genesis made a lot of money for Sega while the Super Nintendo was making a LOT of money for Nintendo. In Japan, the PC Engine(AKA Turbo Grafx 16) was making pretty good money while the Famicom was absolutely DOMINATING that space. So was the Neo-Geo during both of these eras.
That's because you've got Pentax, Panasonic, Fijifilm, Olympus, Leica and many others competing in DLSR, Point and Shoot, Enthusiast and many other markets. Also Canon make more than just cameras. The only way this compares to consoles in when we ask "what happened to Kodak" and answer "they bet on film when the market went digital".
I picked one random example out of the air where there are multiple competitors and no one in the press is screaming that one MUST DOMINATE OR ELSE.
There's nothing special about games consoles that dictate that there is ONE true console and ONE true platform. Have good games, make more than you spend and make sure your follow up products don't suck or whither on the vine.
It's obvious you're young and haven't researched much about the console market, you might want to do that before making ill informed posts.
You clearly know nothing about gaming or the history of gaming. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Err... what?
Game consoles came out nearly simultaneously as PCs did. Game consoles meant you can have an arcade like experience at home. In fact, the Altair 8800 came out 3 years after the first console, the Magnavox Odyssey.
Game consoles were meant to play *games* and facilitate that goal, not be general purpose computers that are devilishly locking you out.
Seriously? Street Fighter? Final Fantasy? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? No More Heroes? The World Ends with You? *Dragon Quest*?
None of these games have "depth?" I think what you mean is "ridiculously thick manual and awful UI."
Anything that can plug into a display and spit sound out of it somehow can be full of casual or "teh hardcorez" gaming anyway. The PC, for example, is nothing but a final resting place for casual games and shovel ware and Pokemon is a ridiculously deeper game than it lets on.
If the traditional console is dead, then it is going the way of the arcade, screwed by the industry that spawned it or destroyed by non-gaming forces beyond it's control.
It's sad that we perpetuate myths, like consoles killed arcade games or there must be one dominant platform, so that way tech writers have something to write about and so fanboys can argue about these things.
It's funny, rarely in other industries do you ever hear that a product or product line will completely eviscerate another product. As far as I know, neither Canon or Nikon have wiped each other off the map nor do they have plans to.
By focusing on profitability and not marketshare.
Sell enough to a dedicated group of people with good internet access and ensure that your profit center IS the console and you're set.
Although that GameStick controller looks simply awful. I wish they built a better joypad.
oh lol roman_mir.
Seriously.
Your solution to America's financial problems is massive cuts to spending, taxation, and then you're harping on the US Government's inability to pay it's debts?
Do you even hear yourself when you say these things?
You cut off the other side of that statement that made it ok. We are good for that money to us. Just raise taxes and end the debt ceiling.
What incentive? I don't know, maybe the satisfaction of doing something they love? Again, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "I'd love to do cool thing X but man the taxes do not make it worth it."
Also, very few people are advocating a 90% top marginal tax rate. It would solve some of our fiscal problems, but...
end the goddamned debt ceiling.
The Republicans knew we were going to hit it and they are dragging their feet on this. It's repulsive.
Wow. No one I've ever met has said, "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." No one.
I hate replying to ACs but you put a lot of not thought into this.
Do you have any idea what this would do to our economic problems? It's like watching someone burning themselves alive and saying, "Hold on, I've got water" when what you really have is gasoline.
The fed could flood the market with money now, then cut things and keep us from going into inflationary periods later.
The reality is, is that the problem is cost cutting and malignancy of the wealthy classes. Profits have been up to record levels for years now and we're in a financial crisis?
Sounds like we have our priorities all wrong.
Because America doesn't operate like a person, America operates like, well, a business(except that it's primary goal isn't generating profit).
Some guy on the internet has a good run down on this.
Besides, most of our debt is to well, us. And we're good for the money. The problem is the debt ceiling and the fact that taxes are too low and the rent is too damned high(or alternatively that wages are also too damned low).
Western governments subsidize crops produced in their own countries and African producers can't compete because of those subsidies - that's not capitalism
You're both wrong. The notion that western governments allow for food to be destroyed willy nilly has been taken care of. That is just so ridiculous I have no idea.
However if we lived in a libertarian free enterprise utopia, the fact that there are massive problems with growing and political strife and upheaval still represents a massive externality. Get rid of the subsidy and we will still have abundance. Not as much as before, but we will not starve.
Why is it that people who want to scream about free markets never seem to make it far enough in Econ 101 to learn about simple concepts that sink their theories?