The good thing about going from least specific to most specific is that it's easy to chop off unnecessary data. In dates for example, "the 25th of March, 2006" is a mouthful to say. But saying just "the 25th" is sufficient because one can assume the month is March. Or if not, "the 25th of March" is enough for an entire year. You can keep adding more information as needed.
That wouldn't seem to work very well with on the web though... you could type "some_unique_webpage" and be taken there immediately. Or you could type "some_non-unique_webpage/slashdot" which would take you to slashdot's version of that page. Or "very_non-unique_webpage/joesblog/org" for a complete specification. I wonder if that would work well or be horribly awful if you integrated a search engine with DNS... there would need to be a different separator between the DNS stuff and the webpage (although some cleverness could probably guess most of the time) "pic_001/niagra_falls/picture:joesblog.org".
Since there are so many websites, this probably wouldn't save much typing in practice... The browser could perhaps limit its domain to sites often visited, unless explicitly taken to a new site or an explicit search requested. If you typed in something unique, it could take you there. Something non-unique, and it would show a list of more specific choices. In both cases, there would be a search button to expand the domain to the entire web (or maybe specific subsections of the web much like google.com/linux etc.).
And of course, this doesn't map directly onto a filesystem.
Yes. I don't recall the exact details, but there was definitely a button.
The screen also wasn't so large. Yours sound much worse. Hopefully more people
start avoiding such stations. I started going to a station that has free air
(for tires). It took me weeks to find such a station (new to the area). I truly
don't care if the gas is slightly more expensive to subsidize the air pump (and
it does not appear to be any more expensive); the convenience of not needing
quarters is worth it.
I had the same experience at a Shell station. I had already begun pumping before I noticed, but I pushed the "turn this crap off" button, thought for a second, then quit pumping and went to the station across the street.
Would it be useful to have the option, for those of us who have friends' PGP keys, to do the Zfone key handshake via PGP encryption that rather than verifying something by voice? It's fantastic from a "getting people to use it" perspective that it does not rely on PKI, but those who have already taken the plunge shouldn't be punished:)
The article actually says all three: "The current Zfone software runs in the Internet Protocol stack on any Windows XP, Mac OS X, or Linux PC". But yes, very refreshing.
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
True, but a table saw, band saw, workbecnch, etc, take up significantly more space, especially considering the sawdust that makes a workshop incompatible with a living room space unlike a computer. As somone living in an apartment but wanting a workshop, this is a bit frustrating.
Both DivX and XviD comply to the MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile (ASP).
H.264 is also known as MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding. There are many parts to
MPEG-4, and each part has different profiles; I'm a little unclear on all the
boundaries. However, all three DivX, XviD, and Apple's implementation of H.264
are standards based.
*sigh* Why don't you want me curb jumping with your bike? Because I might damage it? And then you'd be left with a damaged bike? If I damage a copy of your software, you are not left with damaged software, being in possession of the original. There is a difference between the bike and the software. To deny this is folly. You may freely argue what restrictions society should or should not place on what I can do with "your" software, but to argue that it is yours in the same way as the bike is insanity. They are not the same. A child knows this. A child crys when I take his toy. A child does not cry if I copy his video.
Imagine a world where the bike could be copied in the snap of a finger. Would you object if I asked you to only ride this copy of my bike on smooth non-gravel trails?
Imagine a world where a plate of food could be copied in the snap of a finger. Would you object if I watched you starve while I ate from such a plate?
Imagine a world where software can be copied in the snap of a finger. How far do you want to extend your control over my life? When it's coded in law, and everyone does it, it becomes difficult for me to avoid your chains. I am willing to accept some because it may be the only workable solution (or there may be others). But I am not willing to let you claim a bike is equivalent to software.
I'm not pretending ownership does not exist. I'm merely stating that society allows what it allows, and physics allows what it allows. One of those can and does change. Comparing non-physical rules created by a society to the laws of physics may be useful at times, but to cling to those analogies on faith and not reason is dangerous.
Ok, I see your point. All freedoms flow from the values of a society.
Values which are often under debate. Yet you seem to belive that the reason I
should be unable to copy something is because it's somehow "yours", and you
have the "right" to say what is done with "your" work. No. The reason I
should be unable to copy something is because society has agreed to limit my
freedom.* Society has made a choice based upon values. It has nothing to do
with this fantasy you hold to that this software might be "yours". Perhaps you
should not have given me a copy if you wanted it to remain "yours". Society
may treat it as "yours to copy", but it does not do this because it's "yours";
it does this because its members have agreed that doing so will have benefits,
say, the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts.
You and others may believe or wish that the reason is because it's "yours",
but the law does not currently say that (in the US at least, apologies if it
does say that in your country). If you seek to change that then all I can say
is I hope you fail. Do you believe copyright should have a limit? Why should
it, if it's "yours"? Pass it on to your great-great grandchildren like you
will pass on your grandfather's watch. After all, they're both "yours".
Peace.
* Now, I have not personally agreed as such, but I am a member of society,
and it includes mechanisms for change should the values of a society change, so
I'll try to change it but won't complain about the fact that I never agreed to
it as I don't see a way around that.
The GPL does two things: first, it explicitly allows the user to do whatever
he or she may want and is able to do such as copying, modifying, distributing,
etc, and second it requires that source code be included. The first
restriction only makes the GPL less free in the context of a society that is
imposing these artificial freedom limiting restrictions already. In the
context of a more free society, the GPL and BSD (and any license for that
matter) would be equivalent on the first point. The second restriction may
indeed make the GPL less "free", but I prefer to think of it as a choice. In
the society in which the BSD license lives, the people have decided to limit
their own freedom to do certain things to software such as copy and distribute.
In the GPL society, the people have decided to limit their own freedom to
withhold source code. The BSD allows the freedoms that society denies, but it
makes an implicit choice to belong to that society that limits the freedom to
copy etc. The GPL makes an explicit choice to belong to a different society,
one that does not limit those freedoms but demands source code. In the end,
it's not so much the license that's important, but the values and choices of a
society. The GPL pushes the agenda of: we reject the limitations on freedom
and demand source code. The BSD says: we reject the limitations on freedom,
but also accept them.
I find your arguments distrubing. You say he does not have the "right" to
ask for part of your paycheck. Nor does he have the "right" to copy "your"
software. I say the former is very different from the latter. In the latter
case, you are asking him to give up some of his freedom: the freedom to copy.
His copying does not directly affect you in any way. In the former case, he is
asking something of you that does directly affect you. You have no right to
demand that others limit their freedom for the mere claim that you "own" the
"right" to copy. Now, it so happens that we as a society have decided that
allowing you to do so temporarily will be beneficial for the promotion of the
progress of science and the useful arts. But there is nothing inherent that
says you should be able to limit his freedom in this way as his actions do not
affect you. So, please, throw out the "I own it so he can't copy it" argument.
Instead, argue that society should agree to prevent him fom copying. And it
better have a damn good reason to do so.
I neglected to mention I also want to rack mount the device, and route the input ports (and newly installed power switch) to the front panel on the rack... (it's a small mic preamp), so I bought a switch and several XLR jacks.
Good point... but with my remote controlled devices such as my DVD player, there is no way to turn it off aside from unplugging it. Manufacturers could easily include a hard switch for those who want it as well as standby/on for those who won't turn off. My TV has a hard power switch as well as standby/on. I am currently acquiring parts to add a switch to one of my devices (which lacks even standby, and I'm sick of unplugging it all the time).
Agree completely. My typical data analysis goes something like this: I have several 2D (x&y) data sets. I add more as time passes, creating an abstract time axis. I'd like to able to do something like:
select all 2D data sets
perform some identical numeric manipulation on them, creating new data sets. example: calculate mean and std. deviation. of data sets taken on the same day
extract some of the data vs. the time axis creating a new data set (the time series)
plot the time series using various plotting options such as error bars at the std. deviation
repeat with minimal effort as new data is added
repeat with minimal effort with completely new data sets
Perhaps that isn't a very clear picture of what I'm doing, but if anyone knows of something that can do such a thing, or a better workflow, please speak up. In the past, I have used octave + gnuplot, but the procedural style of octave is a drag (doesn't auto-update like, say, excel does when something changes), and it's difficult to "save" a data manipulation session (scripts may be written, but transporting them to other data sets may not be so easy). Perhaps the only way to go is to bite the bullet and make scripts... Also, tweaking a plot with gnuplot is a tedious code, compile, run cycle. Saving the parameters of a GUI plot (like excel, kaleidagraph, etc.) for reuse is difficult howerver. Isn't there something that does both?
I was looking for some choie Tufte quotes on the futility of representing data on a low resolution [projection] screen, and I found this: Does PowerPoint make you stupid?, a pretty harsh slam of Tufte's disdain for PowerPoint. For those unfamiliar, Tufte hates PowerPoint the tool. He blames PowerPoint itself in part for the Columbia disaster.
The first article I linked defends PowerPoint on the grounds that in the wrong hands, PowerPoint can make horrible presentations, much like anything in the wrong hands. It slams Tufte for seeming to claim that PowerPoint itself is bad, pointing out that Tufte's most hated "Auto Content Wizard" are rarely used.
I have attended Tufte's one-day course. In it, he uses projectors to display very little. A few photos, a video clip, and not much else. For every bit of text or data plot, he refers to the high resolution printed handouts or the pages of his books (included with the course). The point I took away from the PowerPoint chapter (the course covers several topics) was that PowerPoint does two things: First, it encourages Excel style (or OpenOffice Chart style) data plots with few data points, distracting 3D "chart junk", and low resolution (a consequence of being projected rather than printed). And second, it presents information in a sliced and disjointed manner. The audience, Tufte postulated, should be able to peruse the information you are presenting in their own style. Perhaps paying attention to what you are saying, perhaps looking ahead or forming questions about the data. A PowerPoint slide limits the available information to what fits on a single slide: not much. The isolation of the slides makes it difficult for the audience to compare the things you are presenting and to think at their own pace. So, not simply PowerPoint, but any low resolution time-isolated presentation is bad. And on top of that Tufte dislikes the bullet style enforce by PowerPoint, which the above article also criticizes as "you don't have to do it that way" (not so true I think; PowerPoint does push hard for the bulleted list style presentation).
But I think the first article I linked misses Tufte's main points. And with PowerPoint and Excel or OpenOffice's equivalents, one must be very careful to not force the audience to follow your presentation word by word. One should encourage exploration, comparison, and thought. Explain the data, then let the audience peruse it. Forcing one linear path will undoubtedly cloud the picture you are trying to present.
Is that considered a bug? From what I recall, it will compile fine; a bug checker should not list that as a bug. Now, I believe GCC will warn you "recommend parens around truth value" or something like that, which should be noticed by the programmer if it indeed wasn't supposed to be an assignment plus truth check but was meant to be a comparison. I don't think anything can detect logic errors like "if (bread_is_done_baking) { turn_oven_on() }" (instead of turn_oven_off())...
But there are two questions: Is it legal? and, Will there be a
lawsuit? It seems that releasing the code would be completely legal.
Even so, nobody wants to invite a lawsuit, particularly given the legal
environment in the US. Win, lose, or settle, a lawsuit will end up
costing time and money. This is truly depressing and unjust. What can
we do about it? And on top of all that, the author wants to remain on
good terms with the corporation for a possible job application.
From what I understand of interaction design, it's hard work. You can't have a contest "design an interface" and be done with it. That might be a start, if the design is based on observation. The next step would be to start implementing and bring users in for testing early on; then change the design as needed and keep testing. The design must be an iterative process. This is of course difficult with software; many use patterns may not be visible in the short term so I imagine it's easy to draw the wrong conclusions from the observations...
It does make me stop and consider whether these games deserve copyright...
Games from the 1980s would be at or nearing a 14 or 28 year copyright term
expiration. Is the purpose of copyright to divert every possible penny to the
author of a creative work? If not, then copyright should expire at some point.
Someday, those who feel nostalgia for 1980s video games will die or be too
arthritic to play. Should the copyright outlive them? Is it worth it to us as
a society to protect these copyrights? It seems only recently have companies
been cashing in on older games. Back around 2001 when I bought a Dreamcast to
play NesterDC NES emulator, one couldn't buy the old games even if one wanted
to (ingoring buying a used NES and used cartridges) as far as I knew. Only now
do we have multipack games-in-a-controller, or this Xbox thing, or Nintendo's
coming back catalog on Revolution. Was it worth it? Are we better off this
way?
P.S.... The President has been kidnapped by ninjas. Are you a bad enough
dude to rescue the President? --Bad Dudes
Slashdot Mirror
Why not no slash? http:org/slashdot. Much like mailto:foo@example.org (or would that be mailto:foo@org/example). Or aim:do_something_really_annoying, bittorrent:linux.iso.torrent, irc:freenode.org/#debian.
The good thing about going from least specific to most specific is that it's easy to chop off unnecessary data. In dates for example, "the 25th of March, 2006" is a mouthful to say. But saying just "the 25th" is sufficient because one can assume the month is March. Or if not, "the 25th of March" is enough for an entire year. You can keep adding more information as needed.
That wouldn't seem to work very well with on the web though... you could type "some_unique_webpage" and be taken there immediately. Or you could type "some_non-unique_webpage/slashdot" which would take you to slashdot's version of that page. Or "very_non-unique_webpage/joesblog/org" for a complete specification. I wonder if that would work well or be horribly awful if you integrated a search engine with DNS... there would need to be a different separator between the DNS stuff and the webpage (although some cleverness could probably guess most of the time) "pic_001/niagra_falls/picture:joesblog.org".
Since there are so many websites, this probably wouldn't save much typing in practice... The browser could perhaps limit its domain to sites often visited, unless explicitly taken to a new site or an explicit search requested. If you typed in something unique, it could take you there. Something non-unique, and it would show a list of more specific choices. In both cases, there would be a search button to expand the domain to the entire web (or maybe specific subsections of the web much like google.com/linux etc.).
And of course, this doesn't map directly onto a filesystem.
Yes. I don't recall the exact details, but there was definitely a button. The screen also wasn't so large. Yours sound much worse. Hopefully more people start avoiding such stations. I started going to a station that has free air (for tires). It took me weeks to find such a station (new to the area). I truly don't care if the gas is slightly more expensive to subsidize the air pump (and it does not appear to be any more expensive); the convenience of not needing quarters is worth it.
I had the same experience at a Shell station. I had already begun pumping before I noticed, but I pushed the "turn this crap off" button, thought for a second, then quit pumping and went to the station across the street.
Would it be useful to have the option, for those of us who have friends' PGP keys, to do the Zfone key handshake via PGP encryption that rather than verifying something by voice? It's fantastic from a "getting people to use it" perspective that it does not rely on PKI, but those who have already taken the plunge shouldn't be punished :)
The article actually says all three: "The current Zfone software runs in the Internet Protocol stack on any Windows XP, Mac OS X, or Linux PC". But yes, very refreshing.
Only as far as society decides to grant (which, at this point, is quite far, causing much deteriment in my opinion).
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
True, but a table saw, band saw, workbecnch, etc, take up significantly more space, especially considering the sawdust that makes a workshop incompatible with a living room space unlike a computer. As somone living in an apartment but wanting a workshop, this is a bit frustrating.
Woodworking tools require money and, more importantly, space.
True, but there are better ways to go about upscaling (various interpolation algorithms) than simply making the pixels bigger (nearest neighbor). See Gleicher, Michael. A Brief Tutorial On Interpolation for Image Scaling. 1999.
You do know the resolution of a printed book is an order of magnitude greater than any screen, yes?
Both DivX and XviD comply to the MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile (ASP). H.264 is also known as MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding. There are many parts to MPEG-4, and each part has different profiles; I'm a little unclear on all the boundaries. However, all three DivX, XviD, and Apple's implementation of H.264 are standards based.
Casablanca has got to be the most quoted movie of all time...
*sigh* Why don't you want me curb jumping with your bike? Because I might damage it? And then you'd be left with a damaged bike? If I damage a copy of your software, you are not left with damaged software, being in possession of the original. There is a difference between the bike and the software. To deny this is folly. You may freely argue what restrictions society should or should not place on what I can do with "your" software, but to argue that it is yours in the same way as the bike is insanity. They are not the same. A child knows this. A child crys when I take his toy. A child does not cry if I copy his video.
Imagine a world where the bike could be copied in the snap of a finger. Would you object if I asked you to only ride this copy of my bike on smooth non-gravel trails?
Imagine a world where a plate of food could be copied in the snap of a finger. Would you object if I watched you starve while I ate from such a plate?
Imagine a world where software can be copied in the snap of a finger. How far do you want to extend your control over my life? When it's coded in law, and everyone does it, it becomes difficult for me to avoid your chains. I am willing to accept some because it may be the only workable solution (or there may be others). But I am not willing to let you claim a bike is equivalent to software.
I'm not pretending ownership does not exist. I'm merely stating that society allows what it allows, and physics allows what it allows. One of those can and does change. Comparing non-physical rules created by a society to the laws of physics may be useful at times, but to cling to those analogies on faith and not reason is dangerous.
Ok, I see your point. All freedoms flow from the values of a society. Values which are often under debate. Yet you seem to belive that the reason I should be unable to copy something is because it's somehow "yours", and you have the "right" to say what is done with "your" work. No. The reason I should be unable to copy something is because society has agreed to limit my freedom.* Society has made a choice based upon values. It has nothing to do with this fantasy you hold to that this software might be "yours". Perhaps you should not have given me a copy if you wanted it to remain "yours". Society may treat it as "yours to copy", but it does not do this because it's "yours"; it does this because its members have agreed that doing so will have benefits, say, the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts.
You and others may believe or wish that the reason is because it's "yours", but the law does not currently say that (in the US at least, apologies if it does say that in your country). If you seek to change that then all I can say is I hope you fail. Do you believe copyright should have a limit? Why should it, if it's "yours"? Pass it on to your great-great grandchildren like you will pass on your grandfather's watch. After all, they're both "yours".
Peace.
* Now, I have not personally agreed as such, but I am a member of society, and it includes mechanisms for change should the values of a society change, so I'll try to change it but won't complain about the fact that I never agreed to it as I don't see a way around that.
The GPL does two things: first, it explicitly allows the user to do whatever he or she may want and is able to do such as copying, modifying, distributing, etc, and second it requires that source code be included. The first restriction only makes the GPL less free in the context of a society that is imposing these artificial freedom limiting restrictions already. In the context of a more free society, the GPL and BSD (and any license for that matter) would be equivalent on the first point. The second restriction may indeed make the GPL less "free", but I prefer to think of it as a choice. In the society in which the BSD license lives, the people have decided to limit their own freedom to do certain things to software such as copy and distribute. In the GPL society, the people have decided to limit their own freedom to withhold source code. The BSD allows the freedoms that society denies, but it makes an implicit choice to belong to that society that limits the freedom to copy etc. The GPL makes an explicit choice to belong to a different society, one that does not limit those freedoms but demands source code. In the end, it's not so much the license that's important, but the values and choices of a society. The GPL pushes the agenda of: we reject the limitations on freedom and demand source code. The BSD says: we reject the limitations on freedom, but also accept them.
I find your arguments distrubing. You say he does not have the "right" to ask for part of your paycheck. Nor does he have the "right" to copy "your" software. I say the former is very different from the latter. In the latter case, you are asking him to give up some of his freedom: the freedom to copy. His copying does not directly affect you in any way. In the former case, he is asking something of you that does directly affect you. You have no right to demand that others limit their freedom for the mere claim that you "own" the "right" to copy. Now, it so happens that we as a society have decided that allowing you to do so temporarily will be beneficial for the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts. But there is nothing inherent that says you should be able to limit his freedom in this way as his actions do not affect you. So, please, throw out the "I own it so he can't copy it" argument. Instead, argue that society should agree to prevent him fom copying. And it better have a damn good reason to do so.
I neglected to mention I also want to rack mount the device, and route the input ports (and newly installed power switch) to the front panel on the rack... (it's a small mic preamp), so I bought a switch and several XLR jacks.
Good point... but with my remote controlled devices such as my DVD player, there is no way to turn it off aside from unplugging it. Manufacturers could easily include a hard switch for those who want it as well as standby/on for those who won't turn off. My TV has a hard power switch as well as standby/on. I am currently acquiring parts to add a switch to one of my devices (which lacks even standby, and I'm sick of unplugging it all the time).
Agree completely. My typical data analysis goes something like this: I have several 2D (x&y) data sets. I add more as time passes, creating an abstract time axis. I'd like to able to do something like:
Perhaps that isn't a very clear picture of what I'm doing, but if anyone knows of something that can do such a thing, or a better workflow, please speak up. In the past, I have used octave + gnuplot, but the procedural style of octave is a drag (doesn't auto-update like, say, excel does when something changes), and it's difficult to "save" a data manipulation session (scripts may be written, but transporting them to other data sets may not be so easy). Perhaps the only way to go is to bite the bullet and make scripts... Also, tweaking a plot with gnuplot is a tedious code, compile, run cycle. Saving the parameters of a GUI plot (like excel, kaleidagraph, etc.) for reuse is difficult howerver. Isn't there something that does both?
I was looking for some choie Tufte quotes on the futility of representing data on a low resolution [projection] screen, and I found this: Does PowerPoint make you stupid?, a pretty harsh slam of Tufte's disdain for PowerPoint. For those unfamiliar, Tufte hates PowerPoint the tool. He blames PowerPoint itself in part for the Columbia disaster.
The first article I linked defends PowerPoint on the grounds that in the wrong hands, PowerPoint can make horrible presentations, much like anything in the wrong hands. It slams Tufte for seeming to claim that PowerPoint itself is bad, pointing out that Tufte's most hated "Auto Content Wizard" are rarely used.
I have attended Tufte's one-day course. In it, he uses projectors to display very little. A few photos, a video clip, and not much else. For every bit of text or data plot, he refers to the high resolution printed handouts or the pages of his books (included with the course). The point I took away from the PowerPoint chapter (the course covers several topics) was that PowerPoint does two things: First, it encourages Excel style (or OpenOffice Chart style) data plots with few data points, distracting 3D "chart junk", and low resolution (a consequence of being projected rather than printed). And second, it presents information in a sliced and disjointed manner. The audience, Tufte postulated, should be able to peruse the information you are presenting in their own style. Perhaps paying attention to what you are saying, perhaps looking ahead or forming questions about the data. A PowerPoint slide limits the available information to what fits on a single slide: not much. The isolation of the slides makes it difficult for the audience to compare the things you are presenting and to think at their own pace. So, not simply PowerPoint, but any low resolution time-isolated presentation is bad. And on top of that Tufte dislikes the bullet style enforce by PowerPoint, which the above article also criticizes as "you don't have to do it that way" (not so true I think; PowerPoint does push hard for the bulleted list style presentation).
But I think the first article I linked misses Tufte's main points. And with PowerPoint and Excel or OpenOffice's equivalents, one must be very careful to not force the audience to follow your presentation word by word. One should encourage exploration, comparison, and thought. Explain the data, then let the audience peruse it. Forcing one linear path will undoubtedly cloud the picture you are trying to present.
Is that considered a bug? From what I recall, it will compile fine; a bug checker should not list that as a bug. Now, I believe GCC will warn you "recommend parens around truth value" or something like that, which should be noticed by the programmer if it indeed wasn't supposed to be an assignment plus truth check but was meant to be a comparison. I don't think anything can detect logic errors like "if (bread_is_done_baking) { turn_oven_on() }" (instead of turn_oven_off())...
But there are two questions: Is it legal? and, Will there be a lawsuit? It seems that releasing the code would be completely legal. Even so, nobody wants to invite a lawsuit, particularly given the legal environment in the US. Win, lose, or settle, a lawsuit will end up costing time and money. This is truly depressing and unjust. What can we do about it? And on top of all that, the author wants to remain on good terms with the corporation for a possible job application.
From what I understand of interaction design, it's hard work. You can't have a contest "design an interface" and be done with it. That might be a start, if the design is based on observation. The next step would be to start implementing and bring users in for testing early on; then change the design as needed and keep testing. The design must be an iterative process. This is of course difficult with software; many use patterns may not be visible in the short term so I imagine it's easy to draw the wrong conclusions from the observations...
It does make me stop and consider whether these games deserve copyright... Games from the 1980s would be at or nearing a 14 or 28 year copyright term expiration. Is the purpose of copyright to divert every possible penny to the author of a creative work? If not, then copyright should expire at some point. Someday, those who feel nostalgia for 1980s video games will die or be too arthritic to play. Should the copyright outlive them? Is it worth it to us as a society to protect these copyrights? It seems only recently have companies been cashing in on older games. Back around 2001 when I bought a Dreamcast to play NesterDC NES emulator, one couldn't buy the old games even if one wanted to (ingoring buying a used NES and used cartridges) as far as I knew. Only now do we have multipack games-in-a-controller, or this Xbox thing, or Nintendo's coming back catalog on Revolution. Was it worth it? Are we better off this way?
P.S. ... The President has been kidnapped by ninjas. Are you a bad enough
dude to rescue the President? --Bad Dudes