Or maybe its because no scientist can find a compelling reason to divert almost all of NASA's funding from the current excellent science its to the underfunded pipe-dream of sending a man to Mars?
Standard Slashdot answer then... Everything is so black and white isn't it?
You seriously telling me you can't see any moral difference between taking a piss during the ads in the middle of Friends, and downloading all the TV you watch off the web for free?
BTW - I never used the word stealing once in my original post.
Look, what you're doing here is taking something that cost money to make, and enjoying it for free. Not paying for cable TV or watching ads means you're leeching stuff for free, while the rest of us pay for it. Copyright violation isn't a something to be proud of you know - just because you don't like to pay or watch ads doesn't make what you're doing right.
Why the hell would anyone need to reinstall an entire OS every month? I mean - I know Windows is bad, but come on - its ridiculous.
I have 4 computers that I work on and all of them have not been formatted since I first purchased them. Am I strange or something. I'm using Linux, Win2K and Mac OSX on the various machines. Am I odd?
Opening access to scientific journals to a more general population is a good idea. However, having the author pay for publication is a terrible one.
Authors already do pay to publish in scientific journals. In my own field the biggest journal (Astrophysical Journal, or as we called it ApJ) can cost up to $165 a page. See here:
You do know that Windows Media Player is also available on the Mac also? So if Walmart really wanted to make songs available to Mac users they should be able to make them work with that.
"The decision also marked the first time that the FCC cited a four-letter word as profane; the commission previously equated profanity with language challenging God's divinity."
FCC rules on language that challenges God's divinity!
Yes, welcome to the USA folks, where Church and State are constitutionally seperated!!;)
Why are you such a cheapskate? 25cents a song, come on!
Albums at $10 is the right price point, you're seriously suggesting that an album should cost less than a magazine or a big mac meal at McDonalds? Less than half of the cost of one ticket to the movies?
Think about it in terms of value, an album can give you many hours, even years of enjoyment. If you can get CD for $10 in the shops then fair enough, do that. Most of us tend to find that CDs are more like $13-17 these days.
If you really care about the plastic case and book so much then you'd be happy to pay the extra. Myself when I realised that I spend most of my time *listening* to music and not admiring the case, I realised that online music stores are an excellent alternative to going to the shop.
Nintendo only has the rights to their own games, so Square would have to re-release FF.
If you believe rumours, the new Nintendo DS portable apparently is both Gameboy compatible and has WiFi built in, so theres internet possibilities there. Another possibility is what Nintendo is doing with the iQue, where the games are stored on flash cards and you can download them from special booths. Essentially this way theres no reason for a game ever to become out of print.
Don't worry about the head biting. My original post I didn't get my point across that well. It's my personal opinion that emulating the current generation is wrong, because it inevitably leads to piracy of current games (people with GB emulators on their Xboxes are not buying the GBA games, lets face it). Therefore I think it's right that Nintendo should be able to protect their format from being stolen by anyone else, especially an emulator running on a rival system (OK its not a big rival, but there you go).
Like it or not, if Nintendo have a patent granted on something they're protected against other people copying the patented idea. It's entirely different from Lexmark invoking the DMCA on printer refills or Compaq's cloning of the PC BIOS.
Oh and yes, Nintendo has a patent on the cartridge format for the GBA as well, so your "Toyota Oil" example does happen, as the only legal carts you can buy for the GBA have are manufactured by Nintendo themselves. Otherwise what would stop people getting around the game licensing fees and just making their own carts?
I have no idea how much profit Nintendo makes on GBs but its generally known that Nintendo aren't in the business of making a loss on hardware unlike some other companies.
That said, Nintendo makes a "neglible" loss on the GC, but the GBA is way cheaper to make than the GC. I've seen estimates of around $30 for a GBA, but I can't link that because I didn't get it off the web unfortunately.
Anyway - how many games do you seriously think that people using a Tapwave emulator would buy. I'm guessing none, given that you'd need some hardware to rip the roms yourself. No, people would take the path of least resistance and download the roms off the net.
If you think otherwise you're just kidding yourself I'm afraid.
Perhaps with this Patent Nintendo are going to pursue this angle (the use of old ROMS).
Recently Nintendo have been using a lot of their old games (NES games). Previously emulators have considered these games "OK to pirate because you can't buy them any more", but as Nintendo have shown with their Famicom-Mini line in Japan, they still can make money out of these games, hence why they'd want to protect them.
They've also been using their old games in GC games such as Metroid and Animal Crossing, not to mention porting SNES games for the GBA.
If its one thing Nintendo can't be accused of its letting its back catalogue gather dust!
Wow - this makes even less sense than my original post. What is your point here exactly? That Nintendo shouldn't be able to protect their product designs because the people ripping them off worked "oh so hard" on the ripping off?
Are you saying that it takes no time or money to rip a ROM, post it to the net, download it or store it?
Even more amazingly you're saying that there's some percieved value in ripping a GBA ROM and posting on the web, which is illegal (and wrong, IMHO).
Then you finish off with some crap about Marketing. You really are a Slashdot drone arn't you?
You're right. No law says that you can't emulate Gameboys, which is why Nintendo has to use patents to protect its platform. It's their right to do so as a company.
Funny how my opinion being different from your is a "troll".
Utter crap. We're talking about emulating a Gameboy here, and Gameboy only. Sure Nintendo have a monopoly on Gameboys, just like Toyota have a monopoly on Camry's and Sony have a Monopoly on Playstation 2's.
This patent doesn't stop people making other handhelds, or even emulating other handhelds.
Oh the typical slashdot replies. How terrible it is that Nintendo are taking away people's rights? Well I personally don't see it that way. Imagine for a second that I started up a company that made Gameboys, compatible 100% with the Nintendo Gameboy. Essentially I'd be profiting of the design of the Gameboy without paying any money to Nintendo. This would be wrong. Right?
How is an emulator any different? If a company produces a GBA emulator for a Palm Pilot, even ignoring the fact that guaranteed the majority of it's users would be pirating the games for it (yes - they would, admit it), it's essentially a unlicensed gameboy compatible device.
This patent covers Nintendo against this happening, and is as such a very valid use of a patent, i.e. to protect their business interests from being ripped off by third parties.
Oh and no, I don't expect to be modded up BTW, being as I'm not towing the Slashdot party line of "oh my god, what about fair use?".
Why do you think that Apple iTunes Music Store doesn't work everywhere in the world? If international borders meant nothing in trade then there would be no problem. They do though, so no using mp3search.ru is not legal. Stop fooling yourself into thinking it is.
Also do you really think artists are being fairly compensated at 10cents a song?
Slashdot Mirror
No. :) Take all the funding away from the ISS please!
Or maybe its because no scientist can find a compelling reason to divert almost all of NASA's funding from the current excellent science its to the underfunded pipe-dream of sending a man to Mars?
Yeah - but the guy in the top posting won't have paid his TV licence!
Standard Slashdot answer then... Everything is so black and white isn't it?
You seriously telling me you can't see any moral difference between taking a piss during the ads in the middle of Friends, and downloading all the TV you watch off the web for free?
BTW - I never used the word stealing once in my original post.
I might take you seriously if your argument wasn't based on pure pedantry.
Look, what you're doing here is taking something that cost money to make, and enjoying it for free. Not paying for cable TV or watching ads means you're leeching stuff for free, while the rest of us pay for it. Copyright violation isn't a something to be proud of you know - just because you don't like to pay or watch ads doesn't make what you're doing right.
Why the hell would anyone need to reinstall an entire OS every month? I mean - I know Windows is bad, but come on - its ridiculous.
I have 4 computers that I work on and all of them have not been formatted since I first purchased them. Am I strange or something. I'm using Linux, Win2K and Mac OSX on the various machines. Am I odd?
Opening access to scientific journals to a more general population is a good idea. However, having the author pay for publication is a terrible one.
e xt .html
Authors already do pay to publish in scientific journals. In my own field the biggest journal (Astrophysical Journal, or as we called it ApJ) can cost up to $165 a page. See here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/pcharges_t
Not sure why this is "insightful" rather than "funny". After all Xbox modchips can be found with installation for $45.
Yeah, because you never see women driving around in Ford Expeditions do you?
So I compared and contrasted Walmart with iTunes.
Say I want to buy The Flaming Lips' Soft Builletin album (a rare album with no filler).
iTunes music store: $9.99 for the album.
Walmart music store: 88c * 14 tracks = $12.32
So those of us who like to buy albums are not going to be better off unless the album has 12 tracks.
You do know that Windows Media Player is also available on the Mac also? So if Walmart really wanted to make songs available to Mac users they should be able to make them work with that.
"The decision also marked the first time that the FCC cited a four-letter word as profane; the commission previously equated profanity with language challenging God's divinity."
;)
FCC rules on language that challenges God's divinity!
Yes, welcome to the USA folks, where Church and State are constitutionally seperated!!
Why are you such a cheapskate? 25cents a song, come on!
Albums at $10 is the right price point, you're seriously suggesting that an album should cost less than a magazine or a big mac meal at McDonalds? Less than half of the cost of one ticket to the movies?
Think about it in terms of value, an album can give you many hours, even years of enjoyment. If you can get CD for $10 in the shops then fair enough, do that. Most of us tend to find that CDs are more like $13-17 these days.
If you really care about the plastic case and book so much then you'd be happy to pay the extra. Myself when I realised that I spend most of my time *listening* to music and not admiring the case, I realised that online music stores are an excellent alternative to going to the shop.
Nintendo only has the rights to their own games, so Square would have to re-release FF.
If you believe rumours, the new Nintendo DS portable apparently is both Gameboy compatible and has WiFi built in, so theres internet possibilities there. Another possibility is what Nintendo is doing with the iQue, where the games are stored on flash cards and you can download them from special booths. Essentially this way theres no reason for a game ever to become out of print.
Don't worry about the head biting. My original post I didn't get my point across that well. It's my personal opinion that emulating the current generation is wrong, because it inevitably leads to piracy of current games (people with GB emulators on their Xboxes are not buying the GBA games, lets face it). Therefore I think it's right that Nintendo should be able to protect their format from being stolen by anyone else, especially an emulator running on a rival system (OK its not a big rival, but there you go).
Like it or not, if Nintendo have a patent granted on something they're protected against other people copying the patented idea. It's entirely different from Lexmark invoking the DMCA on printer refills or Compaq's cloning of the PC BIOS.
Oh and yes, Nintendo has a patent on the cartridge format for the GBA as well, so your "Toyota Oil" example does happen, as the only legal carts you can buy for the GBA have are manufactured by Nintendo themselves. Otherwise what would stop people getting around the game licensing fees and just making their own carts?
I have no idea how much profit Nintendo makes on GBs but its generally known that Nintendo aren't in the business of making a loss on hardware unlike some other companies.
That said, Nintendo makes a "neglible" loss on the GC, but the GBA is way cheaper to make than the GC. I've seen estimates of around $30 for a GBA, but I can't link that because I didn't get it off the web unfortunately.
Anyway - how many games do you seriously think that people using a Tapwave emulator would buy. I'm guessing none, given that you'd need some hardware to rip the roms yourself. No, people would take the path of least resistance and download the roms off the net.
If you think otherwise you're just kidding yourself I'm afraid.
Perhaps with this Patent Nintendo are going to pursue this angle (the use of old ROMS).
Recently Nintendo have been using a lot of their old games (NES games). Previously emulators have considered these games "OK to pirate because you can't buy them any more", but as Nintendo have shown with their Famicom-Mini line in Japan, they still can make money out of these games, hence why they'd want to protect them.
They've also been using their old games in GC games such as Metroid and Animal Crossing, not to mention porting SNES games for the GBA.
If its one thing Nintendo can't be accused of its letting its back catalogue gather dust!
Wow - this makes even less sense than my original post. What is your point here exactly? That Nintendo shouldn't be able to protect their product designs because the people ripping them off worked "oh so hard" on the ripping off?
Are you saying that it takes no time or money to rip a ROM, post it to the net, download it or store it?
Even more amazingly you're saying that there's some percieved value in ripping a GBA ROM and posting on the web, which is illegal (and wrong, IMHO).
Then you finish off with some crap about Marketing. You really are a Slashdot drone arn't you?
I'll freely admit not to being a patent attorney so I can't tell you as to whether this is a decent patent or not.
:)
However I will say if it's a bogus patent it shouldn't have been granted.
OK - we both know the USPTO is bad at researching prior art. I'm sure Nintendo knows that too and use it to full effect.
What I'm saying here is don't blame Nintendo for doing this, blame the USPTO.
Nintendo do make a profit on GBAs, so they do stand to lose out if someone else makes GBA compatible devices.
Also the Atari case was ruled against Atari I'm sure because they didn't have such a patent to protect themselves.
You're right. No law says that you can't emulate Gameboys, which is why Nintendo has to use patents to protect its platform. It's their right to do so as a company.
Funny how my opinion being different from your is a "troll".
Utter crap. We're talking about emulating a Gameboy here, and Gameboy only. Sure Nintendo have a monopoly on Gameboys, just like Toyota have a monopoly on Camry's and Sony have a Monopoly on Playstation 2's.
This patent doesn't stop people making other handhelds, or even emulating other handhelds.
Oh the typical slashdot replies. How terrible it is that Nintendo are taking away people's rights? Well I personally don't see it that way. Imagine for a second that I started up a company that made Gameboys, compatible 100% with the Nintendo Gameboy. Essentially I'd be profiting of the design of the Gameboy without paying any money to Nintendo. This would be wrong. Right?
How is an emulator any different? If a company produces a GBA emulator for a Palm Pilot, even ignoring the fact that guaranteed the majority of it's users would be pirating the games for it (yes - they would, admit it), it's essentially a unlicensed gameboy compatible device.
This patent covers Nintendo against this happening, and is as such a very valid use of a patent, i.e. to protect their business interests from being ripped off by third parties.
Oh and no, I don't expect to be modded up BTW, being as I'm not towing the Slashdot party line of "oh my god, what about fair use?".
Why do you think that Apple iTunes Music Store doesn't work everywhere in the world? If international borders meant nothing in trade then there would be no problem. They do though, so no using mp3search.ru is not legal. Stop fooling yourself into thinking it is.
Also do you really think artists are being fairly compensated at 10cents a song?