If I choose to set up my computer as an open public space then how is that any different than a library?
It's different from a library in that the library has a finite number of copies. The library is without a particular copy when that copy is loaned out. The creator was paid for copy in use. Sharing allows you to distribute an infinte number of copies. You still have use of the file after someone else takes a copy from you. The creator was only paid for your copy, not the 2, 20, or 2,000 copies you distributed.
Lets angle the argument a little, say I don't allow people to "copy" music files. Could I allow them to listen to them?
In that situation, you're more akin to a broadcaster than a library. Broadcasters, such as TV and radio stations, either own the IP they broadcast or pay the creator for their IP. Are you paying for the right to broadcast?
I can invite people into my house to listen to music still can't I?
Of course you can. One copy, and you're not broadcasting. You're well within your rights. (Just don't charge admission, that might be a gray area.)
Besides, you aren't PUSHING any files on anyone.
Irrelevant. Clear Channel doesn't force me to listen to their radio stations, yet they still pay the creators to pay to broadcast their works.
Yes fair use trumps exclusive rights, but your use (file sharing) isn't covered by fair use. Granted, in your initial scenario, making an archival/formatshifting copy would be covered by fair use. It's when you connect to the P2P network with those files shared out that you run into problems. There are four tests in Section 107 to help determine if a use is fair.
Whether your use is commercial, non-profit, or educational.
The nature of the copyrighted work
How much of the work did you use.
Your use's effect on the market for the copyrighted work.
Of course, there can be other consideration used to make the determination, but you'll lose out on most any reasonable test.
Sure, you're non-profit, but this is the only test you'll pass.
The work you're using is for-profit, this actually works against you since presumption protects the creators rights especially since you're taking food off their table (yes, that intentionally inflammatory.)
Well, you're pretty much using the entire work, otherwise it isn't much of a backup is it? Fair use is really intended to protect public commentary on a work, not giving the work away.
Hrm...you're giving away the work? That would reduce the market for the work (since someone else doesn't need to go out and buy it.) That alone slam dunks your fair use argument. (Yes, I realize that giving a sample away would increase awareness of the creator, but that's a decision for the creator to make, not Joe Filesharer.)
Other fun facts...
If you think the "sell, lease, or assign" language saves your ass, you might want to look here. Especially the fifth definition, "Law. To transfer (property, rights, or interests) from one to another." Um, you're screwed there too.
No definition of "distributor" implies any more of a relationship besides that the distributor distrubes and the distributee recieves.
Ultimately, it does come down to the viability of the RIAA argument. Unfortunately for the file sharers, against giving away someone else's property (even if it is evil intellectual property) it is pretty easy to build a viable argument.
That's just insipid. One word: KINKO's. Publicly accessable copy machines. Guilty of contributory infringement? Nope.
Three words: "Substantial noninfringing uses." There's a world of difference between offering a copier that could be used to copy your term paper or Harry Potter and setting your computer up to distribute copies of Avril Lavgine's albums.
If you do like you say, you're not "the wrong guy", you're "the bad guy". You have to specify what directories are shared in Kazaa and virtually every other P2P software, so why are you sharing your legitmate.mp3s while you're d'loading PD songs?
That would be US Code, Title 17. It's kinda like federal law, oh wait, it is federal law. (At least in the US, most other countries have similar statutes.) The copyright holders have the exclusive right to distribute their works. In other words, you can't share their stuff.
Don't forget ScummVM, based off Lucas Arts engine. You can use it to code your own.
Really, how so? There isn't any mention of rolling your own on the main SCUMMVM page, the faqs, or the mailing lists. In the documentation, there's one section entitled "The inComplete SCUMM Reference Guide" that looks woefully incomplete indeed, basically leaving it at "Well, we know a good bit about the format, so theoretically, you could build one yourself."
Which is unfortunate, since after reading this article, I figured an adventure game would be a neat extension to a story I've been working on, but all the other engines seem to be Windows-only. Although I can develop on a Windows machine, I'd love to port it to my Mac OS X laptop and have it available to any platform.
This year, unsuspecting shoppers will think that two editions of the game - this year's and last year's - are the current versions.
How hard is this to figure out? Please, show me one case where a gamer has been seriously swindled by this.
I don't buy this moron's argument either, but I still have a problem with the naming convention. I just never thought to write it up and submit it to a nationally known newspaper.
My problem is more historical nitpicking, expectation of league standings, and well, calling a spade a spade than it is an accusation of fraud. I can go back and play NHLPA '93 or NHL '96 on my Sega Genesis, but the team rosters I'm playing with are from the '92 and '95 seasons. The All-Star Baseball 2003 game has the Cincinnati Reds playing at Cynergy Field instead of the Great American Ballpark. If I want to play with Jeff George as my QB, which team do I choose in Madden '98? What's the earliest NBA game I can play with the Toronto Raptors? More importantly, you're playing Madden '04 against your buddy who picked the Raiders, do you pick the Rams or the Buccaners?
It almost hurts to see an ad company not get the medium so profoundly. The Internet is not TV and they should stop trying to emulate TV ads on a web browser.
TV ads work, even in an age of remotes and Tivos, because TV is a passive medium. To flip to another channel or hit the "Skip 30" button takes effort from an non-interactive individual (even as small of an effort as using the remote is.) I've been known to watch commercial breaks on taped programs just because I'm too zoned out to notice, which says as much about the program as it does me. Inertia works against active ad avoidance on the TV.
The Internet, however, is a very interactive medium. Since the death of push, the only time I'm not interacting with the browser is when I'm streaming audio or video. Since I'm so interactive, it take very little effort for me to alt-tab to a new browser window or alt-f4 to kill the pop-up (if it even makes it that far with Mozilla.) Since I'm already interacting, inertia actually works for active ad avoidance.
Ultimately, this ad format will fail, not because it's too intrusive, but because it's too annoying. It's annoying enough that people will find a way to block the ads. Internet advertisers need to find a way to make their ads intrusive without being annoying, and full-screen pop-ups that steal focus are not the answer.
A while back, I compared the ratio of ad space to editorial content on Slashdot as compared to other media. For example, magazine ads are relative benign, you don't see people rising up demanding ways to get around magazine ads. But where/. has less than 1% of it's space devoted to ads, a magazine might have 33-50%. Those ads are intrusive, in that they're always there in front of the reader, but they're not too annoying. It helps that they're also highly targeted, you don't see ads for bridal dresses in a video game magazine.
I think that this isn't a problem that EA didn't contact the player association, but rather more a whinny superstar issue. Just like Michael Jordan and a couple NFL quarterbacks, Kahn is probably just removing his likeness from the blanket rights the player association is allowed to sell, so that he can charge the game companies above and beyond what they already pay.
I always thought that if the superstar was going to be such a money grubbing pig, the game company should just take that player out entirely. Don't go with this whole, Pippen and "Player #23" are the top scorers, remove him entirely. Kahn wants to be an ass, let his team do without his virtual services then. Sure his team might suck without him, but it's only a game right?
I never said that they are or aren't. You're making assumptions about what I'm talking about. Your assumptions, while interesting, are not applicable. Neither I nor Erris made any mention of copyrights or copyright laws.
What kind of intellectual property protection do you think Erris was talking about?
Niven answered a question about a copyright based cease and desist order with, "'If you want more Known Space stories' was intended as an invitation to daydream, not to violate my copyrights and steal my ideas." Which kinda leaves the impression that Niven has a bad attitude towards fans and their use of his copyrighted material.
To which Erris responded, "No one owns an idea...Your words are yours, a phrase might be a trademark, implementations might be protected, but the rest is fair game.", which is a straight explaination copyright protections and restrictions.
Then you say, "No matter how many times you might repeat ["No one owns an idea."], it still isn't true." and say that you're not talking about copyright. Well, bully for you, because Niven and Erris are talking about copyright. They sure as hell aren't talking about patents (under which an idea might have protection.)
While I'll grant that you didn't say that ideas are protected by copyright, I fail to see how your comment that "'No one owns an idea' is false" (paraphrased) is correct in the realm of copyright. Even if ideas are owned under some other type of protection, what bearing does that have to someone complaining about a copyright holder's over-zelotness?
I repeat myself: no matter how many times you might repeat that, it still isn't true. You can rationalize all you like, and say that ideas should be common property, but unless you reject the idea of private ownership wholesale-- some people obviously do-- then ideas are owned just like anything else.
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. (My emphasis)
I see you say later that you're not talking about US copyright, but I thought US copyright was more or less synch'ed with the Berne copyright standards. Mind citing your basis that ideas are protected by copyright?
But for some reason the fact that Mr. Mitnick talks at great length about all these abuses but is not willing to test them in court seems indicative of something to me.
I was thinking the same thing as I was reading. But I came to the realization that KM seems to be at peace with the outcome of his situation. He accepts that he broke the law and deserved to be punished. Perhaps he even realizes that a lible suit is just petty vindictiveness.
Then again maybe he just realizes that a liable suit based on "Yes, I'm a criminal, just not as bad as he says!" wouldn't get very far. It might even be bad press for his consulting business ("Oh, he wasn't really all that? Let's get some cheap local guy then.")
If I write a book when I'm 20 years old, I should still be allowed to make money off the sale of that book when I'm 40.
How about when you're 40 you have to pick up your damn pencil and write another fucking book?
Interestingly enough, that is the fundemental argument surrounding the "(t)o promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" clause. It's not unlike the "You can never water it too much" quandry. Does that mean you can pour gallons upon gallons of water, or should you be careful to pour only a little bit?
How do you promote the most progress? By giving a lifetime copyright protection, or by ending copyright during the authors' lifetime? Would Salinger have written more had he not been able to live fat off of Catcher in the Rye royalties? It's a question of legitimate debate, but since the public domain doesn't have as much legislative, judicial, and monetary support as copyright holders, policy has veered strongly in their favor. The idea that copyright should only last a relatively short period of time is dismissed out of hand in mainstream circles.
While I like the project, I think the biggest problem is the interface to use the books. They end up in this crappy.txt format. The searching and browsing is slow and painful. If they just spent a little time on the website, they might get more support!
I don't mind the.txt format, since I can import it into virtually any other format I would want, but I would echo your comments on Project Gutenberg's web site interface. The site's insistence on constantly opening new windows is aggrivating enough, but then there's no obvious way to browse the collection. It's all very user hostile.
My personal beef with PG is the classification of multiple editions. There's four versions of most of Shakespeare's plays. Which one is the one I should use? Give me a little hint..."This is the one to use just to read.", "This one is the canonical version, straight from the Folio.", "This version is in playscript form." Give me a reason to use 1ws2610.txt instead of 2ws2610.txt instead of 1ws2611.txt instead of 0ws2610.txt. I know that "Project Gutenberg has avoided requests, demands, and pressures to create 'authoritative editions.'", but come on, I can deal with the archaic file names, but just give me a little help.
All that said, I still love PG and I think it's one of the more valuable resources on the internet. Keep up the good work guys!
If you want to preserve something forever, encode it in a DNA form (I think that most of DNA code is inactive, so there are plenty of space), grow an live thing from it, and while descendents last, your software will survive.
Except that there's two problems with that, given the fact that DNA doesn't always replicate exactly. (IANA Biologist)
Mutations - Happen all the time, look at albinos.
Introns - Mutations are limited in practice because of introns, sections of DNA that don't encode proteins. IIRC, introns are a huge portion of all DNA, and mutations within them go completely unchecked. (Since they don't encode anything, mutations in introns don't express themselves, and thus don't effect the living creature positively or negatively.)
While it's a neat idea, I wouldn't but any more trust in DNA than my stack of C-64 disks, especially over several generations.
Thanks, I liked it too. It neatly points out the difference between sending someone an email or letter and sending a goon to his door. (Oops, there I go again with my rhetorical images again, sorry.)
How do you know how the PCI-SIG feels?
I'm making an educated guess. This quote from Jim's site sums it up nicely, "I really thought that the data should be housed at the PCI-SIG, however, so I offered it to them. At first there was no response, then a little nibble. Use of CGI programs wasn't common back then, and they didn't think they could even execute the program, so I never heard from them again." If the PCI-SIG felt the list was really necessary, Jim would have heard back from them, or they would have built it themselves.
They should buy it as a gesture of apology for being rude, and because it's in their, and everyone else's best interest. In what world doesn't it make sense?
Somehow, I don't think you'll rip out your PCI ethernet card if PCI-SIG doesn't fork over money to Jim. Beside, buying a list the group doesn't want and didn't ask for just to apologize for treating a legal situation like a legal situation doesn't make sense in any world other than the Smurf village.
This would have become a legal situation had Jim not responded to any other attempt reach him, but he was not extended that courtesy.
That's just it, this already was a legal situation as soon as Jim decided to use PCI-SIG's trademarks on his web site, he just got away with it for awhile. With the official trademarks, perhaps Jim's site looked authorative and official, if there was inaccurate infomation on the site, PCI-SIG might have caught hell for it. The crux of this situation is not that Jim compiled and published the list, nowhere in the C&D letter does anyone complain about the list itself. The sticking point, however, is the useage of PCI-SIG's trademarks. Had he not used their logo and attributed the "PCI" trademark with a prominent disclaimer, I bet the whole situation would have been minimized, if not avoided entirely.
...you seem to have no clue about the difference trademark law and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Actually I do understand the difference between trademark law and the DMCA. Jim was using PCI-SIG's trademake on his site, and as such, diluting the trademark. Having the potential to be confusingly similar, PCI-SIG had to defend their trademark. However, organizations have been claiming DMCA protections on information not unlike what Jim was providing. Please note that I'm not saying that a DMCA challenge would be right, legitimate, or even successful, just that other organizations have claimed such protections over less legitimate information. If Jim thinks this letter was so bad, it's a good thing he didn't consider what they could have done.
They said cease and desist and he did, right?
Right, to a point. PCI-SIG asked Jim to C&D using their trademarks and terms that could be confused with their trademark. Jim, apparently, in a fit of rage, took the whole site down, depriving all of us of a useful service. (Disclaimer: I've never used Jim's list, although I can see it's usefulness to developers, etc... And, I don't even know Jim, he's probably a great guy, but my first impression is his 34 pt. "Fuck 'em!")
Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers. I think that's reasonable. Perhaps instead of responding to your post, I should hire someone to knock on your door tomorrow morning at 5:30am and scream "Your post was ignorant!". See the difference?
Letters from lawyers are not akin to jack-booted thugs waking me up to give me your opinion. This was a legal situation, not an invitation to a party. Maybe if Jim hadn't over-reacted to the letter, there could have been an amicable solution, just like the letter suggested. Yes it would have been nice had PCI-SIG sent a scented SWIK letter to Jim first, but they instead they followed SOP and aggresively defended their trademark. Jim over-reacted, did more than PCI-SIG wanted (they just wanted him to stop using their trademarks), and literally said "Fuck 'em." Way to be mature, Jim. Are you going to take your ball home too?
As for PCI-SIG buying the list from him, that doesn't make sense. The PCI-SIG feels (wrongly) that such a list is unnecessary. Why would a non-profit buy on a list it thinks is unnecessary from a foul-mouthed person who wasn't asked or hired to compile such list?
PCI is what it is. Compare this to automobiles. If you were keeping track of all the automobiles and who made them and some Authoritative They said that 'automobile' and 'car' and any derivative word (like 'auto') were disallowed, what would you call your list? The Mechanized Driving Thingy List? Who would find it?
Wrong analogy. The right analogy is if I were to set up a web site that listed all of the Society of Automotive Engineers standards and used their logos and trademarks throughout the site.
Actually, the PCI-SIG is being charitable, I could see them going after Jim via the DMCA or other dispicable legislation.
If I know the slashdot community PCI-SGI is going to have to work overtime for the next three months...Let's hope that they are big enough to see what boneheads they are and apologize.
Unfortunately, you're probably right about PCI-SIG's email inboxes, but let's hope the Slashdot community is big enough to actually read everything before hitting send.
Here's the Nutshell version: PCI-SIG saw someone using their logo and trademark that they hadn't approved. Never mind the fact that the PCI-SIG is probably funded by companies and people licensing that logo and trademark. The site could have looked confusingly like the PCI's offical site. (Well...maybe, I never used it, so I don't know what it looked like pre-C&D.) This is a serious problem for PCI, especial because they don't control the site. For all they know, the site could suggest adding a PCI card to a computer using a banana and a splash of Jack Daniels.
So they ask they guy to remove their trademarks from his site, nothing more. They even suggested working with his employer, which is a member of the PCI-SIG, to keep the site exactly as is. Then Jim Boemler goes off the deep end because the letter isn't written nicely. Duh...it's from a lawyer, a lawyer could write an invitation to an orgy, and I'd still be intimidated by it. Make no mistake, Boemler pulled the site himself, PCI didn't make him do it, they just wanted to cover their ass.
Since Boemler looks like he's not going to do anymore with the list, maybe someone else could build something from the ruins and just not use PCI's trademarks.
Well, given that this is/., I'll forgive you that you didn't read the C&D letter.
PCI-SIG's beef with Jim's site is that his "...use of PCI-SIG's trademarked name and logo on [his] website is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace..."
All they ask is that he stops using the name PCI, the logo, and similar designations. Nowhere does PCI ask that he discontinue the service. Indeed, they even suggest the possibility of continuing the service as-is through his employer (IBM) which is a partner in the PCI-SIG.
So instead of playing nicely and continuing the service changed only so that he's not using someone else's trademark, Mr. Boemler goes off on a little profanity-laced tirade. Talk about taking the ball home with you...
...but i don't have a DV cam as of yet, so i have no use for iMovie or iDVD.
Actually you can use any DV stream in iMovie. There's a neat little shareware app called Photo to Movie that let's you pan across a.jpg and outputs to a DV stream that iMovie can use. So far, I've used it's output more than my miniDV camera footage. Quickest shareware fee I've ever paid.
The story's a little overblown - Yahoo's privacy policy reads that way because they offer financial services and the like, where they may well need financial information from you to provide the service.
So if the story is an overblown, muck raking, piece of non-news, why are you bothering to post it to the front page? It's like yelling, "Hey guys, listen up! Nevermind!"
Different strokes for different folks...
on
MAME To Become GPL?
·
· Score: 1
Playing "Blackthorne" on my SNES and on a PC (emulated) are two completely different things. I just can't use my SideWinder or Gravis gamepad and get the same feel as playing with my SNES controller.
The hassle of unpacking my Atari 2600 to play a quick game of Adventure, or the Colecovision for Venture, or the Intellivision for Night Stalker, or the NES for Metroid, for me, far outweighs the "benefit" of playing with the original controller. In many cases, I much prefer a Sidewinder over the original pack-in controllers. I still haven't forgiven the designers of the Intellivision controllers.
Sure, I like playing on the original equipment from time to time, but I'd rather play an emulator than take an hour to unpack all the old stuff, untangle it, unhook the current console, hook up the old stuff, then reverse the process after I get tired of Yar's Revenge in 15 minutes. Obviously, YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
- Whether your use is commercial, non-profit, or educational.
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- How much of the work did you use.
- Your use's effect on the market for the copyrighted work.
Of course, there can be other consideration used to make the determination, but you'll lose out on most any reasonable test.- Sure, you're non-profit, but this is the only test you'll pass.
- The work you're using is for-profit, this actually works against you since presumption protects the creators rights especially since you're taking food off their table (yes, that intentionally inflammatory.)
- Well, you're pretty much using the entire work, otherwise it isn't much of a backup is it? Fair use is really intended to protect public commentary on a work, not giving the work away.
- Hrm...you're giving away the work? That would reduce the market for the work (since someone else doesn't need to go out and buy it.) That alone slam dunks your fair use argument. (Yes, I realize that giving a sample away would increase awareness of the creator, but that's a decision for the creator to make, not Joe Filesharer.)
Other fun facts...Ultimately, it does come down to the viability of the RIAA argument. Unfortunately for the file sharers, against giving away someone else's property (even if it is evil intellectual property) it is pretty easy to build a viable argument.
If you do like you say, you're not "the wrong guy", you're "the bad guy". You have to specify what directories are shared in Kazaa and virtually every other P2P software, so why are you sharing your legitmate .mp3s while you're d'loading PD songs?
Which is unfortunate, since after reading this article, I figured an adventure game would be a neat extension to a story I've been working on, but all the other engines seem to be Windows-only. Although I can develop on a Windows machine, I'd love to port it to my Mac OS X laptop and have it available to any platform.
My problem is more historical nitpicking, expectation of league standings, and well, calling a spade a spade than it is an accusation of fraud. I can go back and play NHLPA '93 or NHL '96 on my Sega Genesis, but the team rosters I'm playing with are from the '92 and '95 seasons. The All-Star Baseball 2003 game has the Cincinnati Reds playing at Cynergy Field instead of the Great American Ballpark. If I want to play with Jeff George as my QB, which team do I choose in Madden '98? What's the earliest NBA game I can play with the Toronto Raptors? More importantly, you're playing Madden '04 against your buddy who picked the Raiders, do you pick the Rams or the Buccaners?
TV ads work, even in an age of remotes and Tivos, because TV is a passive medium. To flip to another channel or hit the "Skip 30" button takes effort from an non-interactive individual (even as small of an effort as using the remote is.) I've been known to watch commercial breaks on taped programs just because I'm too zoned out to notice, which says as much about the program as it does me. Inertia works against active ad avoidance on the TV.
The Internet, however, is a very interactive medium. Since the death of push, the only time I'm not interacting with the browser is when I'm streaming audio or video. Since I'm so interactive, it take very little effort for me to alt-tab to a new browser window or alt-f4 to kill the pop-up (if it even makes it that far with Mozilla.) Since I'm already interacting, inertia actually works for active ad avoidance.
Ultimately, this ad format will fail, not because it's too intrusive, but because it's too annoying. It's annoying enough that people will find a way to block the ads. Internet advertisers need to find a way to make their ads intrusive without being annoying, and full-screen pop-ups that steal focus are not the answer.
A while back, I compared the ratio of ad space to editorial content on Slashdot as compared to other media. For example, magazine ads are relative benign, you don't see people rising up demanding ways to get around magazine ads. But where /. has less than 1% of it's space devoted to ads, a magazine might have 33-50%. Those ads are intrusive, in that they're always there in front of the reader, but they're not too annoying. It helps that they're also highly targeted, you don't see ads for bridal dresses in a video game magazine.
I always thought that if the superstar was going to be such a money grubbing pig, the game company should just take that player out entirely. Don't go with this whole, Pippen and "Player #23" are the top scorers, remove him entirely. Kahn wants to be an ass, let his team do without his virtual services then. Sure his team might suck without him, but it's only a game right?
Niven answered a question about a copyright based cease and desist order with, "'If you want more Known Space stories' was intended as an invitation to daydream, not to violate my copyrights and steal my ideas." Which kinda leaves the impression that Niven has a bad attitude towards fans and their use of his copyrighted material.
To which Erris responded, "No one owns an idea...Your words are yours, a phrase might be a trademark, implementations might be protected, but the rest is fair game.", which is a straight explaination copyright protections and restrictions.
Then you say, "No matter how many times you might repeat ["No one owns an idea."], it still isn't true." and say that you're not talking about copyright. Well, bully for you, because Niven and Erris are talking about copyright. They sure as hell aren't talking about patents (under which an idea might have protection.)
While I'll grant that you didn't say that ideas are protected by copyright, I fail to see how your comment that "'No one owns an idea' is false" (paraphrased) is correct in the realm of copyright. Even if ideas are owned under some other type of protection, what bearing does that have to someone complaining about a copyright holder's over-zelotness?
-sk
-sk
Then again maybe he just realizes that a liable suit based on "Yes, I'm a criminal, just not as bad as he says!" wouldn't get very far. It might even be bad press for his consulting business ("Oh, he wasn't really all that? Let's get some cheap local guy then.")
-sk
How do you promote the most progress? By giving a lifetime copyright protection, or by ending copyright during the authors' lifetime? Would Salinger have written more had he not been able to live fat off of Catcher in the Rye royalties? It's a question of legitimate debate, but since the public domain doesn't have as much legislative, judicial, and monetary support as copyright holders, policy has veered strongly in their favor. The idea that copyright should only last a relatively short period of time is dismissed out of hand in mainstream circles.
-sk
My personal beef with PG is the classification of multiple editions. There's four versions of most of Shakespeare's plays. Which one is the one I should use? Give me a little hint..."This is the one to use just to read.", "This one is the canonical version, straight from the Folio.", "This version is in playscript form." Give me a reason to use 1ws2610.txt instead of 2ws2610.txt instead of 1ws2611.txt instead of 0ws2610.txt. I know that "Project Gutenberg has avoided requests, demands, and pressures to create 'authoritative editions.'", but come on, I can deal with the archaic file names, but just give me a little help.
All that said, I still love PG and I think it's one of the more valuable resources on the internet. Keep up the good work guys!
-sk
- Mutations - Happen all the time, look at albinos.
- Introns - Mutations are limited in practice because of introns, sections of DNA that don't encode proteins. IIRC, introns are a huge portion of all DNA, and mutations within them go completely unchecked. (Since they don't encode anything, mutations in introns don't express themselves, and thus don't effect the living creature positively or negatively.)
While it's a neat idea, I wouldn't but any more trust in DNA than my stack of C-64 disks, especially over several generations.-sk
-sk
-sk
As for PCI-SIG buying the list from him, that doesn't make sense. The PCI-SIG feels (wrongly) that such a list is unnecessary. Why would a non-profit buy on a list it thinks is unnecessary from a foul-mouthed person who wasn't asked or hired to compile such list?
-sk
Actually, the PCI-SIG is being charitable, I could see them going after Jim via the DMCA or other dispicable legislation.
Here's the Nutshell version: PCI-SIG saw someone using their logo and trademark that they hadn't approved. Never mind the fact that the PCI-SIG is probably funded by companies and people licensing that logo and trademark. The site could have looked confusingly like the PCI's offical site. (Well...maybe, I never used it, so I don't know what it looked like pre-C&D.) This is a serious problem for PCI, especial because they don't control the site. For all they know, the site could suggest adding a PCI card to a computer using a banana and a splash of Jack Daniels.
So they ask they guy to remove their trademarks from his site, nothing more. They even suggested working with his employer, which is a member of the PCI-SIG, to keep the site exactly as is. Then Jim Boemler goes off the deep end because the letter isn't written nicely. Duh...it's from a lawyer, a lawyer could write an invitation to an orgy, and I'd still be intimidated by it. Make no mistake, Boemler pulled the site himself, PCI didn't make him do it, they just wanted to cover their ass.
Since Boemler looks like he's not going to do anymore with the list, maybe someone else could build something from the ruins and just not use PCI's trademarks.
-sk
-sk
-sk
Sure, I like playing on the original equipment from time to time, but I'd rather play an emulator than take an hour to unpack all the old stuff, untangle it, unhook the current console, hook up the old stuff, then reverse the process after I get tired of Yar's Revenge in 15 minutes. Obviously, YMMV.
-sk