If you can't provide what we want, someone else will. Capitalism fills these niches.
Wolverine was leaked. Maybe it did reduce its potential sales, but it certainly didn't make it impossible to sell tickets for it. The movie industry seems to be able to survive pretty well. Hell, Amazon seems to be doing okay with its mp3 store, even though it's easy to get everything they sell for free.
I'm happy for regulation to exist that enables you to have a profitable business providing things that consumers need. But I'm only willing to allow that much. We have no obligation to maximise your potential profits.
Is even that definition consistent though? I'm sure certain dogs are physically incompatible but I'd be surprised if there were no crossbreeds of such dogs via artificial insemination which makes it a rather arbitrary distinction. There's presumably a distinct common ancestor of tigers and lions that would be compatible with both.
I love comments like this. An AC who can't even bother to use capitals or punctuation states the post is rubbish with no justification or explanation as to why.
It looks like the research paper actually had a 0.6% chance of indicating that an image without a face in had a face in it. Of course that's a fairly old piece of technology. OTOH, it also had a sample set of 1000 images. If you have a million possible faces it's much more likely that you'll get a false match.
The patent title isn't the patent. It's a general description of what the invention does. You can have a dozen different patents for a device to make toast and marmalade. When you look into the patent, you'll see an abstract. This is still just a general description of how it works. The claims are a little more meaningful but really the invention is described in the description. If there's prior art for a device that works in that way, then it's invalid but it could be valid even if there's another application that does it in a different way.
I'm not sure what your point is? Are you arguing that your brain should be banned because an extremely tenuous interpretation of the DMCA would list it as a device that is able to copy?
You're aware that the DMCA doesn't actually ban devices themselves, and that in law, brains are generally not considered devices aren't you?
Or are you arguing that because some stories have aspects of other stories, wholesale copying should be permitted without any recognition for the original author who may have done considerably more work than the remixer?
Because a company doesn't make decisions. A person within the company does. Punish the individuals and the company behaviour will improve without having to screw over all the thousands of people who rely on Verizon for their phones, the hundreds of small investors who have no possible way to deal with this and all the employees that have done nothing wrong.
There's also the opportunity for griefing on a scale to beggar the imagination. The world might well be taken over by a loathsome despot who is an in-game equivalent of a cross between Ghenghis Khan and Pol Pot. I consider this a feature not a bug. It means that the game is completely a product of the players. Will you defend your homes or will you let some dark lord ruin it for you?
Or would the players get irritated and stop playing. Now, don't get me wrong. I like the idea of player led games. I play a live action roleplay that's based on this system. If the players were mature about things, this would be great.
As someone who dislikes power gamers, the idea of players dying of old age would be a great feature. This automatically limits levelling up.
As for the micro-game, you'd be surprised how many people are happy just with the social aspect. For people who prefer a more combat oriented route, the warlord you mentioned will need an army (assuming combat is more of a micro-game aspect). Some people will want to make as much money as possible.
True, but you can still send a legitimate(ish) takedown request. There's the "penalty of perjury" bit, but unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew this was totally non-infringing, there's no case.
It's not about what it could be used for but what it's intended to be used for.
On this basis, this takedown request is bogus but there's no penalty for sending a takedown request if there's a plausible belief that it's legitimate.
Naturally you're going to get a lot of people who like quests since they have mostly come from a gaming background. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The main problem with appealing to this groups is that WoW already does so and it's hard to do so better than WoW. The market for this type of game is completely saturated.
I do however feel that the social aspect could be improved, and an MMO could appeal to a different overlapping set of gamers. Rather than coming from the direction of an RPG and adding multiplayer, what would happen if you started with Second Life and added some game elements?
The hotbar (if I understand it) is just a UI feature. It's kept around because it's a useful piece of UI design.
Quests are another matter. They seem to be designed to turn an MMO into a 1-4 player game. I'm sure you can play WoW and only ever interact with at most 3 people.
Now, this is fine. A lot of people like quests and there's a game that provides them, but it's not the only way to do this. It's a result of designers being stuck in a single player game mindset. It would be possible to base an entire game on actual roleplay, and encourage players to actually compete with each other, form alliances, betrsy each other. Compete for influence. Pay the game the way they feel it should be played. There are games that do this. They have a following. They tend to be low budget affairs but there's certainly a niche.
I seriously think the government has a problem with Bletchley park in that they were responsible for it's greatest figurehead, Alan Turing's death.
No they weren't. A previous government was. We get to elect a new one every 4-5 years. Gordon Brown's government holds none of the responsibility for the death of Alan Turing. Neither did Tony Blair's, John Major's, Margaret Thatcher's, James Callaghan's or either of Harold Wilson's.
excessive speed is one of the primary ways that people are killed while driving.
Excessive speed for the conditions, not merely breaking the speed limit. Yes, speeding should be discouraged, but if you're going to try and justify the new technology to do so, make sure your arguments stand up to scrutiny.
Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it.
Nope. They were quite clear that she was making them available. Whether she downloaded them or ripped them from her own CDs didn't factor into their considerations.
Encrypted partition - good. Esoteric codec - security by obscurity. You're guessing that you're going to come up with an idea that the forensics guys can't. You might be able to but you can't rely on it.
It's intended for yourself. It's so you can force yourself to study.
Have you ever had trouble motivating yourself? Finding distractions that you know are just displacement activities but you still do them? You really need to study but can't? That's what it's for!
I even coined the term "vehicular proprioception" for the "sense" of knowing how close you are to hitting stuff when you're driving around in a car.
I think this sort of thing is quite amazing. That and how my senses can map onto the controls of a car so I can accelerate, brake and turn in a manner that works in no way like my body, without even thinking about it.
And you'll be pleased to hear that the British Firefox dictionary contains proprioception (although oddly not "Firefox").
We don't expect them to. What we do expect them to do is not use terms they don't know the meaning of.
A doctor will do additional tests when I say I broke my arm to determine which bone was broken. If I say I broke my lower clavicle it will confuse and mislead him unless that's exactly the part that was broken.
If I tell a mechanic my bearings are broken when it's a fault with the brakes it will just confuse him. If I say it's making a funny noise he'll know what to do.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't provide what we want, someone else will. Capitalism fills these niches.
Wolverine was leaked. Maybe it did reduce its potential sales, but it certainly didn't make it impossible to sell tickets for it. The movie industry seems to be able to survive pretty well. Hell, Amazon seems to be doing okay with its mp3 store, even though it's easy to get everything they sell for free.
I'm happy for regulation to exist that enables you to have a profitable business providing things that consumers need. But I'm only willing to allow that much. We have no obligation to maximise your potential profits.
Is even that definition consistent though? I'm sure certain dogs are physically incompatible but I'd be surprised if there were no crossbreeds of such dogs via artificial insemination which makes it a rather arbitrary distinction. There's presumably a distinct common ancestor of tigers and lions that would be compatible with both.
I love comments like this. An AC who can't even bother to use capitals or punctuation states the post is rubbish with no justification or explanation as to why.
It looks like the research paper actually had a 0.6% chance of indicating that an image without a face in had a face in it. Of course that's a fairly old piece of technology. OTOH, it also had a sample set of 1000 images. If you have a million possible faces it's much more likely that you'll get a false match.
The patent title isn't the patent. It's a general description of what the invention does. You can have a dozen different patents for a device to make toast and marmalade. When you look into the patent, you'll see an abstract. This is still just a general description of how it works. The claims are a little more meaningful but really the invention is described in the description. If there's prior art for a device that works in that way, then it's invalid but it could be valid even if there's another application that does it in a different way.
It's so artificially crippled that the issues with Linux (i.e. lack of application compatibility) seems insignificant.
I'm not sure what your point is? Are you arguing that your brain should be banned because an extremely tenuous interpretation of the DMCA would list it as a device that is able to copy?
You're aware that the DMCA doesn't actually ban devices themselves, and that in law, brains are generally not considered devices aren't you?
Or are you arguing that because some stories have aspects of other stories, wholesale copying should be permitted without any recognition for the original author who may have done considerably more work than the remixer?
Because a company doesn't make decisions. A person within the company does. Punish the individuals and the company behaviour will improve without having to screw over all the thousands of people who rely on Verizon for their phones, the hundreds of small investors who have no possible way to deal with this and all the employees that have done nothing wrong.
Is that its primary purpose, and are you importing it, offering it to the public, providing or otherwise trafficing in your brain?
If the answer is yes, there are other parts of copyright that would make you personally liable for infringement.
There's also the opportunity for griefing on a scale to beggar the imagination. The world might well be taken over by a loathsome despot who is an in-game equivalent of a cross between Ghenghis Khan and Pol Pot. I consider this a feature not a bug. It means that the game is completely a product of the players. Will you defend your homes or will you let some dark lord ruin it for you?
Or would the players get irritated and stop playing. Now, don't get me wrong. I like the idea of player led games. I play a live action roleplay that's based on this system. If the players were mature about things, this would be great.
As someone who dislikes power gamers, the idea of players dying of old age would be a great feature. This automatically limits levelling up.
As for the micro-game, you'd be surprised how many people are happy just with the social aspect. For people who prefer a more combat oriented route, the warlord you mentioned will need an army (assuming combat is more of a micro-game aspect). Some people will want to make as much money as possible.
True, but you can still send a legitimate(ish) takedown request. There's the "penalty of perjury" bit, but unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they knew this was totally non-infringing, there's no case.
It's not about what it could be used for but what it's intended to be used for.
On this basis, this takedown request is bogus but there's no penalty for sending a takedown request if there's a plausible belief that it's legitimate.
That's very dismissive. What makes you so sure?
Naturally you're going to get a lot of people who like quests since they have mostly come from a gaming background. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The main problem with appealing to this groups is that WoW already does so and it's hard to do so better than WoW. The market for this type of game is completely saturated.
I do however feel that the social aspect could be improved, and an MMO could appeal to a different overlapping set of gamers. Rather than coming from the direction of an RPG and adding multiplayer, what would happen if you started with Second Life and added some game elements?
The hotbar (if I understand it) is just a UI feature. It's kept around because it's a useful piece of UI design.
Quests are another matter. They seem to be designed to turn an MMO into a 1-4 player game. I'm sure you can play WoW and only ever interact with at most 3 people.
Now, this is fine. A lot of people like quests and there's a game that provides them, but it's not the only way to do this. It's a result of designers being stuck in a single player game mindset. It would be possible to base an entire game on actual roleplay, and encourage players to actually compete with each other, form alliances, betrsy each other. Compete for influence. Pay the game the way they feel it should be played. There are games that do this. They have a following. They tend to be low budget affairs but there's certainly a niche.
Please try and get the simple stuff right. It's what being a geek is about.
Well, in that case, Colossus was built to break Lorenz. A teletype cypher. Enigma was attacked using electro-mechanical devices known as bombes.
I seriously think the government has a problem with Bletchley park in that they were responsible for it's greatest figurehead, Alan Turing's death.
No they weren't. A previous government was. We get to elect a new one every 4-5 years. Gordon Brown's government holds none of the responsibility for the death of Alan Turing. Neither did Tony Blair's, John Major's, Margaret Thatcher's, James Callaghan's or either of Harold Wilson's.
excessive speed is one of the primary ways that people are killed while driving.
Excessive speed for the conditions, not merely breaking the speed limit. Yes, speeding should be discouraged, but if you're going to try and justify the new technology to do so, make sure your arguments stand up to scrutiny.
Well for starters, the jury MORE than suggested it.
Nope. They were quite clear that she was making them available. Whether she downloaded them or ripped them from her own CDs didn't factor into their considerations.
It costs money.
What's your point though? I don't think that anyone has suggested Ms. Thomas was stealing music, or even downloading it without permission.
Encrypted partition - good. Esoteric codec - security by obscurity. You're guessing that you're going to come up with an idea that the forensics guys can't. You might be able to but you can't rely on it.
Exponential? As in increasing geometrically? I don't think that's likely.
Google's servers handle a lot of data, so I doubt this will even be a significant increase.
It's intended for yourself. It's so you can force yourself to study.
Have you ever had trouble motivating yourself? Finding distractions that you know are just displacement activities but you still do them? You really need to study but can't? That's what it's for!
And it probably doesn't really exist.
I even coined the term "vehicular proprioception" for the "sense" of knowing how close you are to hitting stuff when you're driving around in a car.
I think this sort of thing is quite amazing. That and how my senses can map onto the controls of a car so I can accelerate, brake and turn in a manner that works in no way like my body, without even thinking about it.
And you'll be pleased to hear that the British Firefox dictionary contains proprioception (although oddly not "Firefox").
We don't expect them to. What we do expect them to do is not use terms they don't know the meaning of.
A doctor will do additional tests when I say I broke my arm to determine which bone was broken. If I say I broke my lower clavicle it will confuse and mislead him unless that's exactly the part that was broken.
If I tell a mechanic my bearings are broken when it's a fault with the brakes it will just confuse him. If I say it's making a funny noise he'll know what to do.