If the game will only work well as a console title then don't develop it until after you've become a licensed console developer. Otherwise just make it a PC and Mac game and make a build for consoles if and when you become a licensed developer.
In other words, the exact same code base is used to build versions for five different environments. There's no other platform in the world that can boast this level of flexibility -- not even close.
Unity3D can produce binaries Windows, MacOS X, iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad and Wii. Upcoming version will also support Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Android.
They'd have to be idiots not to know YouTube was carrying some kind of infringing content somewhere in its library of user-uploaded videos. The important question is not whether they knew this general and largely inevitable fact, nor even whether they thought they might benefit from it. What's important is whether they knew of specific instances of infringement and did nothing to correct it.
The experiment design side-steps the correlation=/causation issue and directly measures causality.
The design of this experiment certainly avoids the "correlation does not equal causation" problem that plagues so many of these studies, but even so I'm not sure it's fair to say that Playstations are the cause of these kids' poor academic performance. I think you could legitimately say that video games were the trigger in this experiment, but surely there are other factors involved that make it possible for the video game console to affect kids in such a manner, as would almost any other time-consuming leisure activity.
Despite this experiment, it seems to me video games don't cause poor academic performance in the same sense that, say, tar causes cancer.
Filtering at the TLD level is an all or nothing proposition: either all of an *.xxx website's content is filtered (along with all other *.xxx sites) or none of it is. As far as filtering systems go, it is the coarsest and least intelligent. While I'd be very much opposed to any kind of government-mandated tagging and filtering, if your goal is to filter based on a webmaster's idea of what's obscene then you're much better off using something like Lawrence Lessig's H2M tag.
Of course, what I really want is for people to stop being so uptight about sex and nudity.
Because it's not a myth. Apple did, in fact, make a copyright infringement claim over the look and feel of Microsoft Windows. Although Microsoft's contract with Apple did ultimately help Microsoft's case, that doesn't change the fact that Apple sued over look an feel issues. From Wikipedia's entry on Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation:
'Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable--either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.'
Many things involving "look and feel" including trademarks and logos are protected. As far as I know, there was no precedent concerning the protection of graphical user interfaces to any significant extent, so it made good sense for Apple to try it.
Except that trademarks and logos are meant to prevent unfair competition rather than enable it. Suing over an operating system's look and feel only makes "good sense" as a selfish, opportunistic act intended to stop other companies from competing fairly against you.
Apple once sued Microsoft on the theory that Windows infringed on the "look and feel" of Mac OS, so it's not at all surprising they would threaten to do the same to Sun over the look and feel of Looking Glass. It's just Apple being Apple, and Jobs being a dick, as usual.
Apple's litigious nature is one of the reasons I tend to avoid Apple products (I do have an iPod, but that's all).
How come the names of Anderson and Bushman come up so often in studies that find ill effects from playing video games? For whatever reason they seem to have quite a knack for finding exactly what they set out to look for. I understand that scientists do often manage to legitimately confirm their pet hypotheses, but why do these two manage to do so more often than other researchers who are working on the same question?
As glad as I am when botnets are crippled or shut down, I can't help but ask: Why is Microsoft the one pursuing this in court, rather than the government? Under what legal principle does Microsoft, a private corporation, have standing to sue for control of these domain names?
I wonder what this says about the degree of power different entities have when they choose to resist DMCA requests. Would Google's upstream provider(s) ever dare to take Google offline should Google decide not to comply with a particular DMCA request like Cryptome's provider has done? I suspect not. There must be an advantage to being a big player on the Internet, and a clear disadvantage under the DMCA to being as small as Cryptome. It's easier to be bullied when you're Cryptome, which somehow makes the DMCA seem even worse than I once thought it was.
Google may well have broken the law, but the point remains the same: they did not post the content in question (the user posted it; Google merely hosted it) and therefore should not, unless they knew about the content beforehand, be held liable for it. They had no knowledge of the video's existence until after they were notified of it, at which point they promptly removed it. Laws often codify right and wrong, but they do not determine what is right and what is wrong. Google's actions in this case are wholly innocent, and any law punishing them for having once hosted the video is objectively unfair. Any claim to the contrary is, to borrow a word from you, just bullshit.
Such strong language might have an impact if it weren't so empty.
Google is no more the one who posted the video than Slashdot is the one that posted your message. Perhaps you feel Slashdot should be held liable for any actionable content in the things you say hear, but that would be grossly unfair to Slashdot regardless of the laws currently in effect. To hold Google responsible for what its users post -- like holding Slashdot responsible for what you post -- would cripple Google as a platform for public expression and turn it into just another editorial medium like TV, newspapers and magazines.
Whether Google broke any laws is ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that the law (or its interpretation) is likely to do far more harm than good.
I don't know Italian privacy law, but if they do have requirements that you must get permission to post video recordings of people on the internet, then this is Google's problem for not bothering to care about the local laws.
Google aren't the ones who posted the video -- they are just the conduit. If Italian authorities wish to take action against those who post videos without permission then let them pursue those who actually choose to post them instead of those who provide the platform.
Fact is, it doesn't make sense for the school to be spying on anyone.
That's hardly a fact, and in any case things don't have to "make sense" to you for them to be true. Perhaps the people you're looking at are acting irrationally? Perhaps the problem is your own inability to think of that which to others is a plausible motive?
That's 1200 students to spy on in the hope that they might catch one of them doing something naughty.
Who says they're spying on all 1200 students? Ask any maker of mass produced goods whether it's necessary to test every single part and product in order to ensure good quality. It isn't, and the same principle may be applied to a population of students.
Why would the school do this?
One possibility: Somebody accused the student in question of either doing or dealing drugs. School officials decided to investigate and found exactly what they were looking for, except that it wasn't really what they were looking for.
Does that mean there's no such thing as censorship unless there's literally no outlet for a particular form of expression? After all, "there are still other countries where speech is not suppressed."
You seem to be operating under the delusion that only governments can engage in censorship. Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but what Apple is doing is effectively the same as censorship.
I shudder to think what the IOC might be able to get away with should ACTA become law. It's a shame how far we've strayed from its original purpose. Copyright was never supposed to enable this kind of abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
If the game will only work well as a console title then don't develop it until after you've become a licensed console developer. Otherwise just make it a PC and Mac game and make a build for consoles if and when you become a licensed developer.
You need to be a licensed developer. The point is that the same exact code and project layout may be used to produce binaries for all those platforms.
That's probably just to accommodate the build settings for each platform. The code itself is likely shared between all builds.
Unity3D can produce binaries Windows, MacOS X, iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad and Wii. Upcoming version will also support Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Android.
They'd have to be idiots not to know YouTube was carrying some kind of infringing content somewhere in its library of user-uploaded videos. The important question is not whether they knew this general and largely inevitable fact, nor even whether they thought they might benefit from it. What's important is whether they knew of specific instances of infringement and did nothing to correct it.
The design of this experiment certainly avoids the "correlation does not equal causation" problem that plagues so many of these studies, but even so I'm not sure it's fair to say that Playstations are the cause of these kids' poor academic performance. I think you could legitimately say that video games were the trigger in this experiment, but surely there are other factors involved that make it possible for the video game console to affect kids in such a manner, as would almost any other time-consuming leisure activity.
Despite this experiment, it seems to me video games don't cause poor academic performance in the same sense that, say, tar causes cancer.
Scam is right. Multilevel marketing makes it almost seem legitimate, which apparently it wasn't.
BTW - I'm using the word "apparently" in the "please don't sue me" sense of the word.
Filtering at the TLD level is an all or nothing proposition: either all of an *.xxx website's content is filtered (along with all other *.xxx sites) or none of it is. As far as filtering systems go, it is the coarsest and least intelligent. While I'd be very much opposed to any kind of government-mandated tagging and filtering, if your goal is to filter based on a webmaster's idea of what's obscene then you're much better off using something like Lawrence Lessig's H2M tag.
Of course, what I really want is for people to stop being so uptight about sex and nudity.
Because it's not a myth. Apple did, in fact, make a copyright infringement claim over the look and feel of Microsoft Windows. Although Microsoft's contract with Apple did ultimately help Microsoft's case, that doesn't change the fact that Apple sued over look an feel issues. From Wikipedia's entry on Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation:
'Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable--either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.'
Except that trademarks and logos are meant to prevent unfair competition rather than enable it. Suing over an operating system's look and feel only makes "good sense" as a selfish, opportunistic act intended to stop other companies from competing fairly against you.
Apple once sued Microsoft on the theory that Windows infringed on the "look and feel" of Mac OS, so it's not at all surprising they would threaten to do the same to Sun over the look and feel of Looking Glass. It's just Apple being Apple, and Jobs being a dick, as usual.
Apple's litigious nature is one of the reasons I tend to avoid Apple products (I do have an iPod, but that's all).
How come the names of Anderson and Bushman come up so often in studies that find ill effects from playing video games? For whatever reason they seem to have quite a knack for finding exactly what they set out to look for. I understand that scientists do often manage to legitimately confirm their pet hypotheses, but why do these two manage to do so more often than other researchers who are working on the same question?
As glad as I am when botnets are crippled or shut down, I can't help but ask: Why is Microsoft the one pursuing this in court, rather than the government? Under what legal principle does Microsoft, a private corporation, have standing to sue for control of these domain names?
I wonder what this says about the degree of power different entities have when they choose to resist DMCA requests. Would Google's upstream provider(s) ever dare to take Google offline should Google decide not to comply with a particular DMCA request like Cryptome's provider has done? I suspect not. There must be an advantage to being a big player on the Internet, and a clear disadvantage under the DMCA to being as small as Cryptome. It's easier to be bullied when you're Cryptome, which somehow makes the DMCA seem even worse than I once thought it was.
Google may well have broken the law, but the point remains the same: they did not post the content in question (the user posted it; Google merely hosted it) and therefore should not, unless they knew about the content beforehand, be held liable for it. They had no knowledge of the video's existence until after they were notified of it, at which point they promptly removed it. Laws often codify right and wrong, but they do not determine what is right and what is wrong. Google's actions in this case are wholly innocent, and any law punishing them for having once hosted the video is objectively unfair. Any claim to the contrary is, to borrow a word from you, just bullshit.
Such strong language might have an impact if it weren't so empty.
Google is no more the one who posted the video than Slashdot is the one that posted your message. Perhaps you feel Slashdot should be held liable for any actionable content in the things you say hear, but that would be grossly unfair to Slashdot regardless of the laws currently in effect. To hold Google responsible for what its users post -- like holding Slashdot responsible for what you post -- would cripple Google as a platform for public expression and turn it into just another editorial medium like TV, newspapers and magazines.
Whether Google broke any laws is ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that the law (or its interpretation) is likely to do far more harm than good.
Google aren't the ones who posted the video -- they are just the conduit. If Italian authorities wish to take action against those who post videos without permission then let them pursue those who actually choose to post them instead of those who provide the platform.
That's hardly a fact, and in any case things don't have to "make sense" to you for them to be true. Perhaps the people you're looking at are acting irrationally? Perhaps the problem is your own inability to think of that which to others is a plausible motive?
Who says they're spying on all 1200 students? Ask any maker of mass produced goods whether it's necessary to test every single part and product in order to ensure good quality. It isn't, and the same principle may be applied to a population of students.
One possibility: Somebody accused the student in question of either doing or dealing drugs. School officials decided to investigate and found exactly what they were looking for, except that it wasn't really what they were looking for.
No. I'm suggesting the existence of alternatives doesn't make what Apple is doing "not censorship".
Does that mean there's no such thing as censorship unless there's literally no outlet for a particular form of expression? After all, "there are still other countries where speech is not suppressed."
You seem to be operating under the delusion that only governments can engage in censorship. Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but what Apple is doing is effectively the same as censorship.
I meant to say "it's a shame how far we've strayed from copyright's original purpose."
I shudder to think what the IOC might be able to get away with should ACTA become law. It's a shame how far we've strayed from its original purpose. Copyright was never supposed to enable this kind of abuse.
The linked website is a source of malware. Do not follow the above link.
If ACTA is anything to go by, it appears there are those who feel we do have [too much] liberty.