It's something I've been expecting to see for a while. It's something I see as a benefit of outsourcing. In 20 years time, I think India is going to be a major player in the tech industry, with a couple of fairly significant software or electronics companies. Much like Japan quickly became a major player in electronics, and much of the pacific rim became major players in the semiconductor industry.
But this is wild specualtion and since I'm no economist, may be completely wrong.
Perhaps he sould also have argued that the cost to the industry of a shorter copyright period would have been quite small. They don't make a lot of money from works older than 50 years.
I can't help feeling that the Suprume court was a little wary of making a ruling that would not only remove copyright on works between 75 and 95 years old, but may also be used to invalidate older copyright laws, possibly right back to the first extension.
How much money do they make from performances of music that was released in 1955 anyway? And does the record industry need so much extra money? Seems to be doing quite nicely as it is.
Why would the record companies use this extra revenue "to look for new talent and nurture it."? They base the amount of money they invest in this on future projected profits. Will they really spend the extra income on looking for more talent rather than shareholder dividends? Is the cost to the public domain really worth it? Would it be better to allow up and coming bands to release covers of classic songs?
But this is the way the legal system works. It's an adversarial system, designed with the principle of protecting the innocent. So with a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the prosecution failed to do so. They demonstrated that the equipment showed an illegal level, but did not succesfully demonstrate that equipment was accurate. But this is just a DUI. While this could potentially be serious, it's only "potentially" so.
In the case of more serious allegations, there is considerably more effort expended on getting the conviction. With a DNA test, the defendatn could sk how the DNA scanner works. Then they have the option to provide source, and allow expert witnesses to demonstrate there's a reasonable possibility that there's a bug, or simply to provide an expert witness to explain in detail how and why it is so accurate. This would take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money. Worth it to convict a rapist, but not a DUI.
Personally, I just don't understand the appeal of text messaging. Maybe that marks me as an old fogey (27), but I just don't need my tendonitis to get any worse, TYVM.
You can send a text message to someone and they can read it and respond to it in their own time, rather than potentially interrupting them from doing something important.
You have a recording of the message. Usefual for those of us with atrocious memories.
Obviously the anonymous coward reply (stated above) was below your level of threshold:P
Obvious is not always right, thus demonstrating the need for experimental verification:P I just took a long time to type that. Or rather to get round to pressing "Submit"
I never realised motor size was a problem though. We still need to do something about the batteries. If they have a fuel cell that runs on regular petrol, diesel or LPG, that would be a bigger help.
Building a bigger aircraft was well within german capabilty. I'm fairly sure an He-177 could have carried the hiroshima bomb, and even if they couldn't, it would have been well within their technological ability. As for rocketry - How hard is it to make a bigger rocket? It can't be rocket science:)
Not sure. There was a similar load of posts a while ago. Thjey all seemed to be Anonymous posts though. It could be a piece of abstract performance art.
But they've still lost the geek votes. They have the choice of partisan gay marriage votes plus the geek votes, or the partisan gay marriage votes minus the geek votes. They can get both by doing the soundbite and voting against any opposed extension to copyright.
Actually, I'm starting to think the DMCA was something of an own goal.
Granted, it has given the media cartels a chunk of power to control the market, but it was so overreaching that it means there is considerably opposition to any further stregthening of copyright. Politicians may like the money, but they also like votes, and it takes a lot of money to cover the cost of losing several thousand geek votes.
Perhaps they should catch up with the modern day (or at least the mid 1980's) and realise that computers support multiple font sizes and styles, and hence you can make important text larger.
I'd gloat. What else is there to do? Apart from go for regular treatments for calcium deficency and all the other issues from living in a hostile low gravity environment.
Actually realising a company has an patentable idea is an expensive proposition. Last time I worked for a company that had a patent policy, any new ideas were run past their legal team. Full time legal teams are not cheap. A multinational microchip company can afford them but games studios are a lot smaller. Programmers have to be taken off their project, it all adds up.
Most compnaies will remove an idea if it turns out its patented. It's clearly no longer going to be a major feature since it's been done before. usually there's another way to do this.
Alternatively they might not realise they have infringed your patent. If you charge them enough to justify the cost of getting the patent in the first place, they're quite likely to fold. Games companies do this a lot.
I suspect that this will work a lot better for the larger publishers. But really it seems like more of a way to push out smaller players.
So you would suggest two execution pipelines, requiring twice the development time and debugging?
The problem is, many of the requests come down to the simple matter of coding time. AI takes time and creates a lot of bugs. Asynchrnous loading takes time and creates bugs. More samples take time. These tend to be quite simple though, so we don't get substantially more bugs. Takes a lot longer to test them all though.
Installing software without permission, especially software that may damage a computer certainly sounds like they'd be putting themselves at risk of some sort of lawsuit.
And, as long as this thread isn't Godwinated... Nazis rely on freedom, and always have done. They came to power in the 1930's on the back of free elections. The reason they manage to have a strong prescence in the US is because of a constitutional guarentee of freedom of speech. While they're in the minority, the extreme right is quite big on freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
It's something I've been expecting to see for a while. It's something I see as a benefit of outsourcing. In 20 years time, I think India is going to be a major player in the tech industry, with a couple of fairly significant software or electronics companies. Much like Japan quickly became a major player in electronics, and much of the pacific rim became major players in the semiconductor industry.
But this is wild specualtion and since I'm no economist, may be completely wrong.
Oh, quite. I see this is beneficial from the point of view of the record industry, but politicians should make laws that benefit everybody.
And it's not like it's as easy to buy a british politician (not because they're more honest. Just because the system is structured diffrently).
Perhaps he sould also have argued that the cost to the industry of a shorter copyright period would have been quite small. They don't make a lot of money from works older than 50 years.
I can't help feeling that the Suprume court was a little wary of making a ruling that would not only remove copyright on works between 75 and 95 years old, but may also be used to invalidate older copyright laws, possibly right back to the first extension.
How much money do they make from performances of music that was released in 1955 anyway? And does the record industry need so much extra money? Seems to be doing quite nicely as it is.
Why would the record companies use this extra revenue "to look for new talent and nurture it."? They base the amount of money they invest in this on future projected profits. Will they really spend the extra income on looking for more talent rather than shareholder dividends? Is the cost to the public domain really worth it? Would it be better to allow up and coming bands to release covers of classic songs?
But this is the way the legal system works. It's an adversarial system, designed with the principle of protecting the innocent. So with a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the prosecution failed to do so. They demonstrated that the equipment showed an illegal level, but did not succesfully demonstrate that equipment was accurate. But this is just a DUI. While this could potentially be serious, it's only "potentially" so.
In the case of more serious allegations, there is considerably more effort expended on getting the conviction. With a DNA test, the defendatn could sk how the DNA scanner works. Then they have the option to provide source, and allow expert witnesses to demonstrate there's a reasonable possibility that there's a bug, or simply to provide an expert witness to explain in detail how and why it is so accurate. This would take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money. Worth it to convict a rapist, but not a DUI.
Replying to my own post. I meant the www.halo3leak.cjb.net link crashed. (WARNING LINK MAY CAUSE BLUE SCREEN)
http://www.jgiannotti.com/pwned/imagecrash.jpg is fine on my machine.
And they have every right to do so under the 1998 Making Legal Crap Up Act.
How much will a card with comparable power to the console cost when the console is finally released?
It's not a fair comparison.
Because moderators are idiots who really need to look up some of these terms in a dictionary.
Personally, I just don't understand the appeal of text messaging. Maybe that marks me as an old fogey (27), but I just don't need my tendonitis to get any worse, TYVM.
You can send a text message to someone and they can read it and respond to it in their own time, rather than potentially interrupting them from doing something important.
You have a recording of the message. Usefual for those of us with atrocious memories.
Obviously the anonymous coward reply (stated above) was below your level of threshold :P
Obvious is not always right, thus demonstrating the need for experimental verification:P I just took a long time to type that. Or rather to get round to pressing "Submit"
You were correct about the vanity thing.
I never realised motor size was a problem though. We still need to do something about the batteries. If they have a fuel cell that runs on regular petrol, diesel or LPG, that would be a bigger help.
I disagree about delivery.
Building a bigger aircraft was well within german capabilty. I'm fairly sure an He-177 could have carried the hiroshima bomb, and even if they couldn't, it would have been well within their technological ability. As for rocketry - How hard is it to make a bigger rocket? It can't be rocket science:)
Not sure. There was a similar load of posts a while ago. Thjey all seemed to be Anonymous posts though. It could be a piece of abstract performance art.
But they've still lost the geek votes. They have the choice of partisan gay marriage votes plus the geek votes, or the partisan gay marriage votes minus the geek votes. They can get both by doing the soundbite and voting against any opposed extension to copyright.
Actually, I'm starting to think the DMCA was something of an own goal.
Granted, it has given the media cartels a chunk of power to control the market, but it was so overreaching that it means there is considerably opposition to any further stregthening of copyright. Politicians may like the money, but they also like votes, and it takes a lot of money to cover the cost of losing several thousand geek votes.
Who'd use floating point? I always used fixed point and took advantage of the carry flag. Improves branch prediction accuracy as well.
Perhaps they should catch up with the modern day (or at least the mid 1980's) and realise that computers support multiple font sizes and styles, and hence you can make important text larger.
I'd gloat. What else is there to do? Apart from go for regular treatments for calcium deficency and all the other issues from living in a hostile low gravity environment.
Yeah? And what are you going to do if a giant asteroid heads towards the planet? Flush yourself down the drain?
No. It just means they have a new improved and better way to award subjective style points.
It depends. The title of a patent alone gives no clues at all about whether prior art exists. It might achieve this in a totally different way.
And Invade-A-Load was the best version of space invaders EVER!
Actually realising a company has an patentable idea is an expensive proposition. Last time I worked for a company that had a patent policy, any new ideas were run past their legal team. Full time legal teams are not cheap. A multinational microchip company can afford them but games studios are a lot smaller. Programmers have to be taken off their project, it all adds up.
Most compnaies will remove an idea if it turns out its patented. It's clearly no longer going to be a major feature since it's been done before. usually there's another way to do this.
Alternatively they might not realise they have infringed your patent. If you charge them enough to justify the cost of getting the patent in the first place, they're quite likely to fold. Games companies do this a lot.
I suspect that this will work a lot better for the larger publishers. But really it seems like more of a way to push out smaller players.
So you would suggest two execution pipelines, requiring twice the development time and debugging?
The problem is, many of the requests come down to the simple matter of coding time. AI takes time and creates a lot of bugs. Asynchrnous loading takes time and creates bugs. More samples take time. These tend to be quite simple though, so we don't get substantially more bugs. Takes a lot longer to test them all though.
Installing software without permission, especially software that may damage a computer certainly sounds like they'd be putting themselves at risk of some sort of lawsuit.
And, as long as this thread isn't Godwinated... Nazis rely on freedom, and always have done. They came to power in the 1930's on the back of free elections. The reason they manage to have a strong prescence in the US is because of a constitutional guarentee of freedom of speech. While they're in the minority, the extreme right is quite big on freedom.