So the fact that your friends volunteer more information is the fault of facebook?
No, but changing the settings environment so that information you previously thought was viewable by friends only is now viewable by either 1)everyone or 2)friends of friends, is a problem, and over the course of the last 2 years, this is what has happened. People that had information that they thought was somewhat "private" are now broadcasting it to the world if they have not gone through the very convoluted privacy setup on Facebook. I have had to reprivatize some info more than once.
But this example isn't plagiarism, which would be legal in this instance. This particular case is only like "plagiarism" if you consider looking at the book, and then copying virtually every single word in it, but it is now in your handwriting.
While not a legal standard per se, one of the old standbys to prevent being accused of copyright infringement is to make sure your version is different in three significant ways. If the guy didn't use the word PAC anywhere, made the characters different colors and look at least arguably different, and the maps were similar but obviously different, we wouldn't be discussing it. It would be a legit clone. Instead, it almost looks like an official version of the game at a glance, which obviously hurts the IP owner's ability to profit from their own previous work. That is the entire purpose of all these IP laws: to give the original creator a limited time monopoly on their original work, and prevent some clown from just making a copy and paste version of it to undercut them on price. What this guy did is almost a counterfeit version. I'm sure his intentions weren't bad, but it is what it is.
Does that mean I'm incompetent in searching or does the "namco bandai"-company really only have word marks?
It means you are assuming they trademarked the image of Pac-man, which they obviously didn't. They DID, however, trademark an image of the words "PAC-MAN" in several instances, which is technically a non-word match, but it is an image of the words. Of course, that doesn't matter since DMCA covers copyright, not trademarks, and the image of Pac-man is automatically copyrighted upon initial creation.
Oh, and don't bother ever linking to tess, those are per session, and the links never work.
try putting a Mickey Mouse -- whether you created such yourself or not -- on the sign for your place of business and watch how fast Disney's lawyers educate you as to the true legalities of visual copyright.
You don't need to even do that. Just do some research on how many day care centers have received threats of lawsuits for having Disney-ish characters painted on the outside of their buildings. Even on characters that Disney doesn't actually own, ie: Snow White (penned by the Brothers Grimm), they own their own interpretation of the character and the visuals.
I also noticed on this page that more than once he refers to the character in the game as "pacman", such as his bugfix and release messages:
"Pacman now moves faster (from V1.05). In later levels, some of the ghosts may move faster then Pacman." and "Super Pac V1.05 released - Increased speed of Pacman"
The problem here is that there is exactly zero artistic expression in this game, it is purely cloning over the complete look and feel and characters and gameplay. Not all of that is copyright-able, but the total of the circumstances makes it clear that this is what copyright law is supposed to protect against. He only needed to make the maps and characters somewhat different to avoid this issue, but instead chose to be 100% "accurate" to the original, even down to the character name. Well, mission accomplished.
why the hell they don't replace large parts of the passenger side door with glass panels?
What stops car makers from using more glass, thus making smaller blind spots, is roll over regulations. They talked about that with the Mustang and Challenger, how they had to put a bar between the side window and door window because of rollover laws. Used to, there was only a thin metal strip on those kinds of windows, just enough to seal the door glass. Also, back in the day, those glass panels were larger to start with. Now, federal safety standards require the top to be more rigid in case it rolls over. Of course, I find that ironic as it obviously convertibles are exempted.
Yes, I think that the Hungarians said the same thing in '56.
There are more guns in the USA than people. Really. There also wasn't the same culture of independence and self-determination. In otherwords, your argument is a strawman.
He still has the clearance because of his civilian job. The government can get him fired, believe me, by simply saying "he is a security risk and has to be pulled from any government related task". Instant pink slip, he can collect unemployment but can't sue. And he gets to explain to his next employer that he was a security risk. This is why I am saying that what the government is doing is a thinly veiled threat, it is a form of extortion. If anyone but the government was doing it, it would be a felony.
What happens when our government is in violation of our constitution? Who will hold the law makers accountable?
Usually, the voters, unless they exceed their boundaries, which they are trying to do. The Founding Fathers anticipated that, which is why the 2nd Amendment was created. Not as a final solution, but to limit the government's ability (and willingness) to get to a worst case scenario. And in the unlikely worst case scenario, as a final solution.
People might say "oh, the military has tanks and missiles, your little AR-15 isn't going to stop anything", but those are operated by young, freedom loving people like you and I. The only *really* dangerous people in government are the lifetime bureaucrats (civilian and military) at the top, who are very far removed from the average person. Fortunately, we outnumber them by hundreds of thousands to one. I may have little faith in our government, but I have a lot of faith in the average American.
Same reason I would feel safer on an airplane full of bikers than in one full of TSA agents.
As someone who has gone through the process of getting a top tier TS clearance, I can say that what you are saying is a nice theory, but that is all. Under normal circumstances, it would have a minimal impact, if any, on getting a security clearance. (You have civilians who are already privy to classified info, etc. and get further clearances...) The primary concerns of the government when granting a clearance are not about what you know, they are "have you ever done anything that you can be blackmailed for in your past" and "can you keep a secret and follow orders to not even tell your spouse". This DSS (was DIS) criteria isn't new or secret. It is all about insuring that future information you would have access to can't be obtained through you by manipulation or threat.
What the government is doing is a form of censorship after the fact. They can't stop the information from flowing, but they can use FUD to scare their loyal employees from reading it, lowering morale, etc. It is despicable and very possibly illegal, all under the guise of "well, we don't want it to prevent you from getting a job, [wink, wink]. It is a thinly veiled threat.
The phase "given a level playing field" shows a charming naiveté on you part which is astonishing given that you're posting on/.
No, it shows that the problem is the playing field, which has been unleveled by political meddling and payola. We don't need new rules on what companies can charge, which would instead only serve to raise the cost of entry into the market for other players, we need the field to be open and level. *Real* capitalism isn't the problem, it isn't even being practiced. Capitalism *does* work just fine, and it is my high hope that we soon try it in America, perhaps to replace the Corporatism we currently practice.
You obviously know nothing about anything I have written previously on the subject yet quick to misread then judge my intelligence on the matter.
the record industry got caught price fixing for a decade.. what happened?
The internet happened, and now most music is "bought" for free. Again, the system isn't instantaneous, but just like karma, it tends to catch up with people.
Of course, the resulting cluster would have a combined RAM total of 14,417,920 bytes, or well under 16MB, since the MOS Technology 6507 only could access 8k. Except half the RAM is reserved for BIOS, to in reality you could access less than 8MB of RAM for the OS and applications. In other words, it might not even run Linux.
I don't see where what particular device I'm using to demand that data comes into play on the supply/demand curve.
Yes, that is the problem, you don't see it. Demand isn't a two dimensional thing, nor is it calculated only by the MB. It is based upon the number of people wanting a very particular service vs. the ability of all the competition to provide it. It is modified further by raising prices on overages at whatever level they want to set, intentionally dampening demand to a level that is most profitable to serve. At that point, they adjust the supply to fit that demand.
Business is a lot more complicated than "I buy a widget for $1 and sell it for $2, I can spend $1 profit", particularly when you are talking about a cut throat multi-billion dollar industry that demands constant upgrading of equipment on a daily basis, and planning for the future with equipment that hasn't been invented yet.
You have be brain washed into thinking that a consumer having a choice is the pinnacle of capitalism
No, Mr. Knowitall, a free market is where those who are selling a good have equal access to the market place, ie: a level playing field in which to participate, like I said./me thinks you spent too much time in college and not enough time actually owning and managing businesses.
Look, these are businesses which are in business to make a profit. No business sets their price based solely on cost of good. It is determined by supply and demand, what the market will bare, and what competitors are charging. If we start getting into telling businesses what to charge, according to OUR ideas of what is fair, well, that isn't capitalism. Don't like your carrier? Change. What we need to do is get rid of contracts and open up the marketplace, not tell companies what to charge.
Capitalism IS a self-correcting system. It isn't instantaneous, but given a level playing field, it is fair.
Why would you be downloading a 6 GB file if your cap is 5, etc?
You do realize that this is not 1993, and people use the internet for more than ftp, right? Most websites aren't static html files that you just download the 50k of text and images and they are cached forever on your hard drive. Some are claiming that 20% of the traffic is due to Netflix and streaming video on demand. This is something I would certainly be doing on a laptop when traveling, the type of customer this is specifically designed for, theoretically.
It is amazing how much bandwidth is sucked up doing what would be considered simple viewing of text. The rotating ads alone suck up 100x the bandwidth of the text.
Reminds me of the joke about two guys that selling watermelons on the side of the road. They buy them from farmers for $1, and sell them to customers for $1. The one guys says to the other, "We aren't making any money doing this, you know what we need?" The other replies "Yea, a bigger truck."
the outside of a "home" should not be "private". it's visible to the public: therefore should be photograph-able.
No one is arguing that, except Barbra Streisand, (see the Streisand effect). What they are saying is that you shouldn't trespass in order to obtain those photos, which is a valid point. Go ahead and photo my house, just get off my lawn to do it.
Since the judge found for the plaintiff, you would have to assume each paid their own. If the Boring's lawyer worked on a contingency, that would land him around $0.33 cold hard cash, to spend as he would like.
Firstly, there are no jobs. There are no jobs because there is little foreign investment in industry.
The majority of jobs in the USA are not in industry, they are in small business, typically with less than 10 or 15 employees. As flawed as our government is, having a democratic society that encourages entrepreneurship is why our average unemployment is lower than most anywhere over the last many decades. Freedom isn't the same as jobs, but it usually leads to them.
The whole point of patenting things (aside from trolling, which is actually contrary to the point, but anyway) is to get to market first because the PTO gives you a temporary monopoly
I would disagree and say the idea behind patenting is that you don't HAVE to get to market first, as no one can enter the market using your patented device/method. There is no rush to market if no one can legally compete with you on the same technology.
Slashdot Mirror
So the fact that your friends volunteer more information is the fault of facebook?
No, but changing the settings environment so that information you previously thought was viewable by friends only is now viewable by either 1)everyone or 2)friends of friends, is a problem, and over the course of the last 2 years, this is what has happened. People that had information that they thought was somewhat "private" are now broadcasting it to the world if they have not gone through the very convoluted privacy setup on Facebook. I have had to reprivatize some info more than once.
But this example isn't plagiarism, which would be legal in this instance. This particular case is only like "plagiarism" if you consider looking at the book, and then copying virtually every single word in it, but it is now in your handwriting.
While not a legal standard per se, one of the old standbys to prevent being accused of copyright infringement is to make sure your version is different in three significant ways. If the guy didn't use the word PAC anywhere, made the characters different colors and look at least arguably different, and the maps were similar but obviously different, we wouldn't be discussing it. It would be a legit clone. Instead, it almost looks like an official version of the game at a glance, which obviously hurts the IP owner's ability to profit from their own previous work. That is the entire purpose of all these IP laws: to give the original creator a limited time monopoly on their original work, and prevent some clown from just making a copy and paste version of it to undercut them on price. What this guy did is almost a counterfeit version. I'm sure his intentions weren't bad, but it is what it is.
Does that mean I'm incompetent in searching or does the "namco bandai"-company really only have word marks?
It means you are assuming they trademarked the image of Pac-man, which they obviously didn't. They DID, however, trademark an image of the words "PAC-MAN" in several instances, which is technically a non-word match, but it is an image of the words. Of course, that doesn't matter since DMCA covers copyright, not trademarks, and the image of Pac-man is automatically copyrighted upon initial creation.
Oh, and don't bother ever linking to tess, those are per session, and the links never work.
try putting a Mickey Mouse -- whether you created such yourself or not -- on the sign for your place of business and watch how fast Disney's lawyers educate you as to the true legalities of visual copyright.
You don't need to even do that. Just do some research on how many day care centers have received threats of lawsuits for having Disney-ish characters painted on the outside of their buildings. Even on characters that Disney doesn't actually own, ie: Snow White (penned by the Brothers Grimm), they own their own interpretation of the character and the visuals.
I also noticed on this page that more than once he refers to the character in the game as "pacman", such as his bugfix and release messages:
"Pacman now moves faster (from V1.05). In later levels, some of the ghosts may move faster then Pacman."
and
"Super Pac V1.05 released - Increased speed of Pacman"
The problem here is that there is exactly zero artistic expression in this game, it is purely cloning over the complete look and feel and characters and gameplay. Not all of that is copyright-able, but the total of the circumstances makes it clear that this is what copyright law is supposed to protect against. He only needed to make the maps and characters somewhat different to avoid this issue, but instead chose to be 100% "accurate" to the original, even down to the character name. Well, mission accomplished.
why the hell they don't replace large parts of the passenger side door with glass panels?
What stops car makers from using more glass, thus making smaller blind spots, is roll over regulations. They talked about that with the Mustang and Challenger, how they had to put a bar between the side window and door window because of rollover laws. Used to, there was only a thin metal strip on those kinds of windows, just enough to seal the door glass. Also, back in the day, those glass panels were larger to start with. Now, federal safety standards require the top to be more rigid in case it rolls over. Of course, I find that ironic as it obviously convertibles are exempted.
Yes, I think that the Hungarians said the same thing in '56.
There are more guns in the USA than people. Really. There also wasn't the same culture of independence and self-determination. In otherwords, your argument is a strawman.
It's ok. You're no longer in the military.
He still has the clearance because of his civilian job. The government can get him fired, believe me, by simply saying "he is a security risk and has to be pulled from any government related task". Instant pink slip, he can collect unemployment but can't sue. And he gets to explain to his next employer that he was a security risk. This is why I am saying that what the government is doing is a thinly veiled threat, it is a form of extortion. If anyone but the government was doing it, it would be a felony.
What happens when our government is in violation of our constitution? Who will hold the law makers accountable?
Usually, the voters, unless they exceed their boundaries, which they are trying to do. The Founding Fathers anticipated that, which is why the 2nd Amendment was created. Not as a final solution, but to limit the government's ability (and willingness) to get to a worst case scenario. And in the unlikely worst case scenario, as a final solution.
People might say "oh, the military has tanks and missiles, your little AR-15 isn't going to stop anything", but those are operated by young, freedom loving people like you and I. The only *really* dangerous people in government are the lifetime bureaucrats (civilian and military) at the top, who are very far removed from the average person. Fortunately, we outnumber them by hundreds of thousands to one. I may have little faith in our government, but I have a lot of faith in the average American.
Same reason I would feel safer on an airplane full of bikers than in one full of TSA agents.
As someone who has gone through the process of getting a top tier TS clearance, I can say that what you are saying is a nice theory, but that is all. Under normal circumstances, it would have a minimal impact, if any, on getting a security clearance. (You have civilians who are already privy to classified info, etc. and get further clearances...) The primary concerns of the government when granting a clearance are not about what you know, they are "have you ever done anything that you can be blackmailed for in your past" and "can you keep a secret and follow orders to not even tell your spouse". This DSS (was DIS) criteria isn't new or secret. It is all about insuring that future information you would have access to can't be obtained through you by manipulation or threat.
What the government is doing is a form of censorship after the fact. They can't stop the information from flowing, but they can use FUD to scare their loyal employees from reading it, lowering morale, etc. It is despicable and very possibly illegal, all under the guise of "well, we don't want it to prevent you from getting a job, [wink, wink]. It is a thinly veiled threat.
The phase "given a level playing field" shows a charming naiveté on you part which is astonishing given that you're posting on /.
No, it shows that the problem is the playing field, which has been unleveled by political meddling and payola. We don't need new rules on what companies can charge, which would instead only serve to raise the cost of entry into the market for other players, we need the field to be open and level. *Real* capitalism isn't the problem, it isn't even being practiced. Capitalism *does* work just fine, and it is my high hope that we soon try it in America, perhaps to replace the Corporatism we currently practice.
You obviously know nothing about anything I have written previously on the subject yet quick to misread then judge my intelligence on the matter.
the record industry got caught price fixing for a decade.. what happened?
The internet happened, and now most music is "bought" for free. Again, the system isn't instantaneous, but just like karma, it tends to catch up with people.
Of course, the resulting cluster would have a combined RAM total of 14,417,920 bytes, or well under 16MB, since the MOS Technology 6507 only could access 8k. Except half the RAM is reserved for BIOS, to in reality you could access less than 8MB of RAM for the OS and applications. In other words, it might not even run Linux.
I don't see where what particular device I'm using to demand that data comes into play on the supply/demand curve.
Yes, that is the problem, you don't see it. Demand isn't a two dimensional thing, nor is it calculated only by the MB. It is based upon the number of people wanting a very particular service vs. the ability of all the competition to provide it. It is modified further by raising prices on overages at whatever level they want to set, intentionally dampening demand to a level that is most profitable to serve. At that point, they adjust the supply to fit that demand.
Business is a lot more complicated than "I buy a widget for $1 and sell it for $2, I can spend $1 profit", particularly when you are talking about a cut throat multi-billion dollar industry that demands constant upgrading of equipment on a daily basis, and planning for the future with equipment that hasn't been invented yet.
You have be brain washed into thinking that a consumer having a choice is the pinnacle of capitalism
No, Mr. Knowitall, a free market is where those who are selling a good have equal access to the market place, ie: a level playing field in which to participate, like I said. /me thinks you spent too much time in college and not enough time actually owning and managing businesses.
Look, these are businesses which are in business to make a profit. No business sets their price based solely on cost of good. It is determined by supply and demand, what the market will bare, and what competitors are charging. If we start getting into telling businesses what to charge, according to OUR ideas of what is fair, well, that isn't capitalism. Don't like your carrier? Change. What we need to do is get rid of contracts and open up the marketplace, not tell companies what to charge.
Capitalism IS a self-correcting system. It isn't instantaneous, but given a level playing field, it is fair.
So why did they take that customer back?
3. Profit!
Why would you be downloading a 6 GB file if your cap is 5, etc?
You do realize that this is not 1993, and people use the internet for more than ftp, right? Most websites aren't static html files that you just download the 50k of text and images and they are cached forever on your hard drive. Some are claiming that 20% of the traffic is due to Netflix and streaming video on demand. This is something I would certainly be doing on a laptop when traveling, the type of customer this is specifically designed for, theoretically.
It is amazing how much bandwidth is sucked up doing what would be considered simple viewing of text. The rotating ads alone suck up 100x the bandwidth of the text.
Reminds me of the joke about two guys that selling watermelons on the side of the road. They buy them from farmers for $1, and sell them to customers for $1. The one guys says to the other, "We aren't making any money doing this, you know what we need?" The other replies "Yea, a bigger truck."
the outside of a "home" should not be "private". it's visible to the public: therefore should be photograph-able.
No one is arguing that, except Barbra Streisand, (see the Streisand effect). What they are saying is that you shouldn't trespass in order to obtain those photos, which is a valid point. Go ahead and photo my house, just get off my lawn to do it.
Since the judge found for the plaintiff, you would have to assume each paid their own. If the Boring's lawyer worked on a contingency, that would land him around $0.33 cold hard cash, to spend as he would like.
Firstly, there are no jobs. There are no jobs because there is little foreign investment in industry.
The majority of jobs in the USA are not in industry, they are in small business, typically with less than 10 or 15 employees. As flawed as our government is, having a democratic society that encourages entrepreneurship is why our average unemployment is lower than most anywhere over the last many decades. Freedom isn't the same as jobs, but it usually leads to them.
The whole point of patenting things (aside from trolling, which is actually contrary to the point, but anyway) is to get to market first because the PTO gives you a temporary monopoly
I would disagree and say the idea behind patenting is that you don't HAVE to get to market first, as no one can enter the market using your patented device/method. There is no rush to market if no one can legally compete with you on the same technology.
(it's why the OpenBSD guys use Solaris).
Is that that why Microsoft ran Hotmail on Linux for so many years? ;)
Actually I gave up Mac because Photoshop and Quark started working on PC just fine, along with all my other apps.