The Official Playstation Magazine recently ran a cover story called Seven Games That Will Change Everything. All SEVEN of the games predicted to "change everything" were SEQUELS. Innovative games, I think, have always been the exception not the norm, but the industry is firmly gripped by sequelitis to a much greater extent than ever before....
I joined in early 2000, and Netflix has not raised the price or changed my terms, even though the membership deal I have is no longer available. They did start charging sales tax at some point. At any rate, they have rewarded me in a sense for being a long-time customer because I can keep out 4 movies for the same price a new customer can rent 3.
First off, there is a considerably larger number of players in the current conflict than just the United States and Bin Laden, even if you count only the nations that have troops involved in Afghanistan. Second, by some of the logic I've seen here on Slashdot, the U.S. hasn't been in a war for a VERY long time - - including the Korean War, Desert Storm, etc. I posit that we can be involved in a war without Congress having formally declared one - - especially in a situation like this, where Bin Laden actually did "declare war" against America (and Jews). Third, whether or not the author of the original post was articulate in voicing his opinion, I agree with it. There has been a HUGE amount of venom spewed in the U.S.' direction on slashdot of late, and I find that distressing. The U.S. is repeatedly referred to as being "the only terrorist," and trouncing on others' rights. Horseshit. The U.S. has been kicked around by Islamic terrorists repeatedly, and did nothing about it -- see the embassy bombings, the Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc. -- until the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. is punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and working to reduce the likelihood that Islamic terrorists anywhere will have the wherewithal to launch such a strike again. In the U.S. at least, everyone is certainly entitled to voice their opinions -- including those critical of the U.S. itself. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
No, I think the relative dearth of posts is a result of the fact that it is the day after Thanksgiving here in the States, and many offices are closed today./.ers are home eating turkey leftovers and playing video games rather than posting at work, I would guess....
No. Of course, the term comes from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and deals with a person's rights in a U.S. court. How this has anything to do with private enterprises in foreign lands terminating business relations with certain groups is beyond me. And, of course, even in the context of an individual's rights in the U.S., the concept does not prevent the government from removing that individual from society - - removing the threat - - PRIOR to proving that person's guilt.
They did apparently know of each other - - at least to some extent. The open mic on one of the planes picked up the highjackers saying they had other planes/pilots.
This will never go to a jury. There are no readily apparent major issues of disputed fact - - the questions are all legal. In that case, the matter is unlikely to even go to trial. Assuming no settlement is reached, the case will likely be decided -- by a judge -- at the summary judgment stage.
Geez. I hate to correct myself, but....
The disc works fine in a stand-alone cd player. The plaintiff (and CDNow) claim that the disc can't even be listened to AT ALL on a computer though. I presume this could be fixed by turning off auto-run, but who knows? Even forcing someone to take this step seems a bit over the top though.... Guess I jumped the gun a bit on my post. Sorry.
Read between the lines. The cd works fine if you just want to listen to the tunes. If you want to get some EXTRA features that are included at no extra charge, you have to give up something in exchange. What's wrong with that? If you don't want to listen to the extra encoded stuff, don't.
That's really the fatal part. It means that the RIAA, acting with the authority of the copyright owner, can do whatever it wants to unencrypt the works....
Starland has a store in the Northern Virginia area that I've been to a few times. They buy, sell, and repair just about anything video-game related -- Atari 2600, 5200, Colecovision, Sega Master System, Genesis, 32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gameboy, Virtual Boy, neogeo, Playstation, PS2, etc. and imports. They run not only a brick-and-mortar shop, but also a website, which you can check out here. The guys that run the store are genuinely nice, and assuming you don't want to set up shop next door, might be able to provide you with some more specific direction....
Joe Sixpack won't have to do anything - - the article isn't talking about revamping a PS2 for home use. It was talking about revamping a PS2 for ARCADE use. Joe Sixpack can certainly figure out how to walk into an arcade, put a dollar in a slot, and shoot stuff. I don't think Joe Sixpack has a gaming station with a propietary operating system that is networked, with cameras, removeable storage and a scanner.
Well, first off, Amazon didn't actually patent the online shopping cart - - in fact, Amazon cited consumer frustration with the online shopping cart as one of the reasons it sought to develop it's one-click method. Second, and more importantly, read the appellate court decision. It does not finally resolve the question, since as other/.ers have noted it only vacates the District Court's injunction, but it certainly suggests that Amazon does not not have a valid patent because the "innovative" one-click method had been previously disclosed by others, and was thus not patentable. The decision describes scores of prior art references....
In this case, we find that the district court committed clear error by misreading the factual content of the prior art references cited by BN and by failing to recognize that BN had raised a substantial question of invalidity of the asserted claims in view of these prior art references.
The court discussed several specific prior art references.
All MP3.com was attempting to do was allow people to listen to their music more easily. It wasn't facilitating copying of anybody else's music. It was just facilitating my ability to listen to my CDs whether I'm sitting at home or work. Now, that was a pretty creative way to attempt to make the music more valuable for the consumer. There is no showing that there is an increase in the amount of music that's being stolen because of this; in fact, they were taking important steps to make sure people didn't wrongfully copy music here. But the legal system's response was to say, "absolutely willful violation of the copyright laws," and we're going to punish you as strongly as we can - something like a $100 million fine against this company - for their experimentation with different modes of facilitating distribution.
True, MP3.com was not making it easier for users to copy music illegally -- users had to either buy the music from an affiliate of mp3.com or insert a copy of the cd to prove they owned it before they could listen to the mp3 version stored on mp3.com's servers. The court found that mp3.com had willfully violated copyrights because the company did not have permission to make copies of the music (in mp3-compressed format), so that it's copying of the music onto its server was an infringement. The concept of a user being able to access music on a server after proving ownership of the original cd can still fly - - but the company with the server first has to get permission to put copies of the music on the server.... Companies may come up with new methods of distribution, but can't simply use content from others which they have no right to distribute. I don't see what's unreasonable about that.
Generally these types of patents are "business method" patents. The code itself isn't patented (it could be copyrighted), but the method by which a particular task is implemented is. It's far broader than simply protecting the code.
Re:you won't be seeing any popular authors there!
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
Does he publish online his new works? Or his older ones (like On Basilisk Station) to generate interest in new ones, and hopefully new fans who will stick around for the series?
As I stated in an earlier reply to another/.er,
Publishing online some older works, to generate interest in newer ones, would be a good idea even for the most popular authors.
The targets are physical, not virtual. Most of the playfield is a standard pinball game, with ramps, targets, etc. Video images are projected over the top of the playfield (usually over ramps, or a hole), so that different virtual targets (a Martian, or a spaceship, for example) can be displayed, and other information provided. But the traditional elements of pinball are still there. As for economic viability.... These things are quite expensive. The plan to make them economically viable was to make it easy to change the machine - - rather than having to get an entire new machine, you could simply get a new playfield and new software from the distributor after the original game wasn't generating acceptable revenue.
would have been nice. I'm not saying they should have sent the credit card number and expiration date, but perhaps a simple "You used a Visa (**** **** **** 1234) in March 1999 . . .."
Slashdot Mirror
The Official Playstation Magazine recently ran a cover story called Seven Games That Will Change Everything. All SEVEN of the games predicted to "change everything" were SEQUELS. Innovative games, I think, have always been the exception not the norm, but the industry is firmly gripped by sequelitis to a much greater extent than ever before....
I joined in early 2000, and Netflix has not raised the price or changed my terms, even though the membership deal I have is no longer available. They did start charging sales tax at some point. At any rate, they have rewarded me in a sense for being a long-time customer because I can keep out 4 movies for the same price a new customer can rent 3.
MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America....
I don't think they're involved....
It's RIAA.
:)
And yet just as true.
The internet is not used by terrorists.
Are you going to share your crack with the rest of us?
First off, there is a considerably larger number of players in the current conflict than just the United States and Bin Laden, even if you count only the nations that have troops involved in Afghanistan. Second, by some of the logic I've seen here on Slashdot, the U.S. hasn't been in a war for a VERY long time - - including the Korean War, Desert Storm, etc. I posit that we can be involved in a war without Congress having formally declared one - - especially in a situation like this, where Bin Laden actually did "declare war" against America (and Jews). Third, whether or not the author of the original post was articulate in voicing his opinion, I agree with it. There has been a HUGE amount of venom spewed in the U.S.' direction on slashdot of late, and I find that distressing. The U.S. is repeatedly referred to as being "the only terrorist," and trouncing on others' rights. Horseshit. The U.S. has been kicked around by Islamic terrorists repeatedly, and did nothing about it -- see the embassy bombings, the Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc. -- until the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. is punishing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and working to reduce the likelihood that Islamic terrorists anywhere will have the wherewithal to launch such a strike again. In the U.S. at least, everyone is certainly entitled to voice their opinions -- including those critical of the U.S. itself. But that doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
No, I think the relative dearth of posts is a result of the fact that it is the day after Thanksgiving here in the States, and many offices are closed today. /.ers are home eating turkey leftovers and playing video games rather than posting at work, I would guess....
No. Of course, the term comes from an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and deals with a person's rights in a U.S. court. How this has anything to do with private enterprises in foreign lands terminating business relations with certain groups is beyond me. And, of course, even in the context of an individual's rights in the U.S., the concept does not prevent the government from removing that individual from society - - removing the threat - - PRIOR to proving that person's guilt.
Perhaps you should watch "A Boy and His Dog" and ask if yourself if you'd prefer to live like that.
They did apparently know of each other - - at least to some extent. The open mic on one of the planes picked up the highjackers saying they had other planes/pilots.
This will never go to a jury. There are no readily apparent major issues of disputed fact - - the questions are all legal. In that case, the matter is unlikely to even go to trial. Assuming no settlement is reached, the case will likely be decided -- by a judge -- at the summary judgment stage.
Geez. I hate to correct myself, but....
The disc works fine in a stand-alone cd player. The plaintiff (and CDNow) claim that the disc can't even be listened to AT ALL on a computer though. I presume this could be fixed by turning off auto-run, but who knows? Even forcing someone to take this step seems a bit over the top though.... Guess I jumped the gun a bit on my post. Sorry.
Read between the lines. The cd works fine if you just want to listen to the tunes. If you want to get some EXTRA features that are included at no extra charge, you have to give up something in exchange. What's wrong with that? If you don't want to listen to the extra encoded stuff, don't.
That's really the fatal part. It means that the RIAA, acting with the authority of the copyright owner, can do whatever it wants to unencrypt the works....
and will continue to buy Britney Spears and N'Sync in droves at Walmart, no matter what the RIAA does.
Starland has a store in the Northern Virginia area that I've been to a few times. They buy, sell, and repair just about anything video-game related -- Atari 2600, 5200, Colecovision, Sega Master System, Genesis, 32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gameboy, Virtual Boy, neogeo, Playstation, PS2, etc. and imports. They run not only a brick-and-mortar shop, but also a website, which you can check out here. The guys that run the store are genuinely nice, and assuming you don't want to set up shop next door, might be able to provide you with some more specific direction....
You must live in a nice neighborhood. At the local mall near me, those things would get trashed in less than a day.
Joe Sixpack won't have to do anything - - the article isn't talking about revamping a PS2 for home use. It was talking about revamping a PS2 for ARCADE use. Joe Sixpack can certainly figure out how to walk into an arcade, put a dollar in a slot, and shoot stuff. I don't think Joe Sixpack has a gaming station with a propietary operating system that is networked, with cameras, removeable storage and a scanner.
Well, first off, Amazon didn't actually patent the online shopping cart - - in fact, Amazon cited consumer frustration with the online shopping cart as one of the reasons it sought to develop it's one-click method. Second, and more importantly, read the appellate court decision. It does not finally resolve the question, since as other /.ers have noted it only vacates the District Court's injunction, but it certainly suggests that Amazon does not not have a valid patent because the "innovative" one-click method had been previously disclosed by others, and was thus not patentable. The decision describes scores of prior art references....
The appellate court stated:
In this case, we find that the district court committed clear error by misreading the factual content of the prior art references cited by BN and by failing to recognize that BN had raised a substantial question of invalidity of the asserted claims in view of these prior art references.
The court discussed several specific prior art references.
True, MP3.com was not making it easier for users to copy music illegally -- users had to either buy the music from an affiliate of mp3.com or insert a copy of the cd to prove they owned it before they could listen to the mp3 version stored on mp3.com's servers. The court found that mp3.com had willfully violated copyrights because the company did not have permission to make copies of the music (in mp3-compressed format), so that it's copying of the music onto its server was an infringement. The concept of a user being able to access music on a server after proving ownership of the original cd can still fly - - but the company with the server first has to get permission to put copies of the music on the server.... Companies may come up with new methods of distribution, but can't simply use content from others which they have no right to distribute. I don't see what's unreasonable about that.
Generally these types of patents are "business method" patents. The code itself isn't patented (it could be copyrighted), but the method by which a particular task is implemented is. It's far broader than simply protecting the code.
As I stated in an earlier reply to another /.er,
Publishing online some older works, to generate interest in newer ones, would be a good idea even for the most popular authors.
The targets are physical, not virtual. Most of the playfield is a standard pinball game, with ramps, targets, etc. Video images are projected over the top of the playfield (usually over ramps, or a hole), so that different virtual targets (a Martian, or a spaceship, for example) can be displayed, and other information provided. But the traditional elements of pinball are still there. As for economic viability.... These things are quite expensive. The plan to make them economically viable was to make it easy to change the machine - - rather than having to get an entire new machine, you could simply get a new playfield and new software from the distributor after the original game wasn't generating acceptable revenue.
would have been nice. I'm not saying they should have sent the credit card number and expiration date, but perhaps a simple "You used a Visa (**** **** **** 1234) in March 1999 . . . ."