Makes sense, though... why would (a significant number of) people want to get their American news from a British national news site?
That said, I (an American) am a fan of Reuters (a British company) for my Internet hard news fix, although I believe they're much more global in scope than the BBC. For domestic ink-on-paper, I like the Wall Street Journal (original reporting, and fluff is clearly relegated to its section) or the Chicago Tribune (don't know why... just like it).
For that matter, I wonder what the cost would be on putting a show out on a DVD subscription basis. For the people that don't want to mess around with burning their own discs or dealing with whatever player requirement the studio chooses, subscribers could just get platform-neutral DVD episodes in the mail.
Of course, this does sound a bit like the lukewarm flop that "CD-ROM Magazines" were back in the day...
Creators have control of their inventions until such time as they freely give up the rights to them. If they choose to bargain with their inventions, that's their own choice to make. If rights couldn't be voluntarily transferred, they would lose much of their value, and intellectual creation would become less and less of a viable career.
To say that situations like this are an affront to copyright's mission is similar to saying that selling some unknown valuable antique at a yard sale for five bucks is an affront to commerce. It might've been the wrong decision to make, but the fault is solely on the people involved in the transaction.
If nothing else, this does mean that new and better things have to be made, since the original rights are locked up. Progress isn't about standing in the same place.
Does this mean that they're finally listening to the people?
RTFA!
But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.
All that means is that independent stores will just have to innovate, something which the franchises will naturally be slower and less equipped to do, with their size, inertia, and more centralized management.
With enough money, they can buy out enough hardware, encourage enough research, hire enough programmers, etc, to do almost anything.
At which point it's probably cheaper, risk included, just to bomb something.
Re:The Managed Utopia
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
Fair enough, I misunderstood ya'.
I question, though, whether "It used to be that we loved our work because we had independent livelihoods." is actually true, or just golden-age rose tint memory. If you're talking post-industrial-age, though, the "artisan" trade has always cycled between different professions as things become discovered than mechanized. It never really disappeared, although it was always a specialty. Yesterdays shoemakers are just today's web designers, because making shoes is now procedural.
Re:The Managed Utopia
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 1
If we had intelligent, productive people, they wouldn't buy things they didn't need. They wouldn't tolerate useless sinecures, bureaucracies, or government jobs. They wouldn't be satisfied working for somebody else, or taking charity from the State. Useful, productive people don't need mass-produced goods made identically by machines, because smart useful people won't work in mindless jobs operating and managing the machines of mass production (whether they be hardware machines or social machines which are comprised of humans, yet lack humanity).
Thank god, then, that we're not all intelligent, productive, pretentious divas with our heads in the clouds. Who'd farm, run cable, or build things? You know, the things that grease the wheels of everyday life enough that people can think about lofty topics (or, perhaps just play some Doom) rather than worry about whether this year's crop will sustain. Without labor and materials, intelligence is near nil worthless.
the crass reasons higher learning institutions have for offering game design courses
Wha'? There was nothing here even hinting at "reasons". The article was a (somewhat disjointed) opinion rant: "1.) Video games are violent. 2.) Video games are popular. 3.) Schools are starting video game design courses (and should not)" (although not specifically in that order).
This article makes weak connections at best between violent video games and the detriment a game design program would have. The title of the article, the statement of the article, and the supporting points in the article seem to come from three totally different places. It's kind of a lukewarm ADD-rambling grumble. There might be a defensible position here, but I can't make it out.
Or, suck it up, shut it down, and try for a more original idea. Why not aspire to a new original game rather than a technically-legal finagled version of something that already exists.
I commend the game's maker. There're so many, on both sides, who would spend more time fighting for rights in their old, dubiously legitimate creations than it would take to just come up with something new and better. This fellow's content to move on to bigger and better things. Someone should get this guy into Disney... they could use such an attitude.
Re:Great for Electricity but...
on
Artificial Tornadoes
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, that or people getting happy about having a nuclear power plant in their back yard.
If better safety controls and protocols were applied, I would be. Maybe I just don't know enough about it, but I think a lot of the problem with nuclear power is the same sort of mistaken impression as flying-vs-driving, or microwaves-vs-stovetop. With nuclear, the damage in the case of a failure can be much more catastrophic, and the risk factors are strange and scary, but the net ecological damage versus something like coal or fossil fuels is actually less, provided nothing goes Chernobyl or TMI. Of course there is the risk of a Chernobyl or TMI, but if people could actually work on the problem, solutions could be found. Me? I'd rather have nuclear now than wind, water, or solar that's always just over the horizon.
I've got no problem with the idea of playlists, I just don't like the fact that iTunes is so centered around that way of working, and it's heavily resistant to other methodologies. Still, that's not so bad, except for the fact that there's near-nil for other MP3 players out there for the Mac. (Although, to be honest, I currently only use a Mac at work, so I haven't had much time or incentive to go digging for alternate MP3 players.)
I have the same problem, along with the fact that iTunes doesn't remove duplicate pointers or offline files (MP3 CD tracks, for instance) from the master list. Winamp's "Current Playlist" is the right idea, but they really need to put in more integration (drag/drop, for instance) between the Library and playlist.
I'm not gonna side with the revisionists but if someone believes otherwise, thats his business.
In a free-speech society, although it's no one's place to stamp out absurd revisionism or half-baked positions, I'd say it's your place-- duty, even-- to call them out on being absurd and half-baked. A free-speech society where all positions are accepted and tolerated without opposition (because, after all, "It's a free country!") totally counters the goal of free speech. In an arena of open debate, incorrect speech is put down by the example of better ideas, not by force, but it should still be opposed.
I'm not sure theres anything legal anyone could do about simply expressing pro Al Qaeda views, even with the Patriot act.
It's extralegal, but there are things such as overbearing tax audits (although I'm pretty sure this has been ruled illegal), unwarranted investigations (making sure your boss and associates know you're "under investigation", of course), trumping-up unrelated charges.
Once a library (or any software, for that matter) gets touched by enough fingers, though, doesn't that become a large problem, even just in finding out who to ask?
OTOH, not everyone gives a care about the show notes, even if you do mention them. That's going to cut out a significant demographic. As someone trying to sell advertising, I'd rather accent the number that shows the LARGEST number of hits, that being the "downloaded" count.
If your advertiser was looking for more, you could either put a short survey on the site to "Nielson" some numbers, or you could just find another more willing advertiser.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes sense, though... why would (a significant number of) people want to get their American news from a British national news site?
That said, I (an American) am a fan of Reuters (a British company) for my Internet hard news fix, although I believe they're much more global in scope than the BBC. For domestic ink-on-paper, I like the Wall Street Journal (original reporting, and fluff is clearly relegated to its section) or the Chicago Tribune (don't know why... just like it).
For that matter, I wonder what the cost would be on putting a show out on a DVD subscription basis. For the people that don't want to mess around with burning their own discs or dealing with whatever player requirement the studio chooses, subscribers could just get platform-neutral DVD episodes in the mail.
Of course, this does sound a bit like the lukewarm flop that "CD-ROM Magazines" were back in the day...
Creators have control of their inventions until such time as they freely give up the rights to them. If they choose to bargain with their inventions, that's their own choice to make. If rights couldn't be voluntarily transferred, they would lose much of their value, and intellectual creation would become less and less of a viable career.
To say that situations like this are an affront to copyright's mission is similar to saying that selling some unknown valuable antique at a yard sale for five bucks is an affront to commerce. It might've been the wrong decision to make, but the fault is solely on the people involved in the transaction.
If nothing else, this does mean that new and better things have to be made, since the original rights are locked up. Progress isn't about standing in the same place.
Does this mean that they're finally listening to the people?
RTFA!
But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.
All that means is that independent stores will just have to innovate, something which the franchises will naturally be slower and less equipped to do, with their size, inertia, and more centralized management.
Solution: Bomb IPv4 installations.
With enough money, they can buy out enough hardware, encourage enough research, hire enough programmers, etc, to do almost anything.
At which point it's probably cheaper, risk included, just to bomb something.
Fair enough, I misunderstood ya'.
I question, though, whether "It used to be that we loved our work because we had independent livelihoods." is actually true, or just golden-age rose tint memory. If you're talking post-industrial-age, though, the "artisan" trade has always cycled between different professions as things become discovered than mechanized. It never really disappeared, although it was always a specialty. Yesterdays shoemakers are just today's web designers, because making shoes is now procedural.
If we had intelligent, productive people, they wouldn't buy things they didn't need. They wouldn't tolerate useless sinecures, bureaucracies, or government jobs. They wouldn't be satisfied working for somebody else, or taking charity from the State. Useful, productive people don't need mass-produced goods made identically by machines, because smart useful people won't work in mindless jobs operating and managing the machines of mass production (whether they be hardware machines or social machines which are comprised of humans, yet lack humanity).
Thank god, then, that we're not all intelligent, productive, pretentious divas with our heads in the clouds. Who'd farm, run cable, or build things? You know, the things that grease the wheels of everyday life enough that people can think about lofty topics (or, perhaps just play some Doom) rather than worry about whether this year's crop will sustain. Without labor and materials, intelligence is near nil worthless.
Yes, but what do you think of the article?
the crass reasons higher learning institutions have for offering game design courses
Wha'? There was nothing here even hinting at "reasons". The article was a (somewhat disjointed) opinion rant: "1.) Video games are violent. 2.) Video games are popular. 3.) Schools are starting video game design courses (and should not)" (although not specifically in that order).
This article makes weak connections at best between violent video games and the detriment a game design program would have. The title of the article, the statement of the article, and the supporting points in the article seem to come from three totally different places. It's kind of a lukewarm ADD-rambling grumble. There might be a defensible position here, but I can't make it out.
In short, "This is news?"
Did anything happen? I don't see what legal leg they'd have to stand on, as long as it was clear that yours wasn't a Hasbro or Risk branded addon.
How long do we have to pay "da man" to play games?
Until a.) The copyright/patent expires. b.) You think of and implement a unique game idea.
Or, suck it up, shut it down, and try for a more original idea. Why not aspire to a new original game rather than a technically-legal finagled version of something that already exists.
I commend the game's maker. There're so many, on both sides, who would spend more time fighting for rights in their old, dubiously legitimate creations than it would take to just come up with something new and better. This fellow's content to move on to bigger and better things. Someone should get this guy into Disney... they could use such an attitude.
Well, that or people getting happy about having a nuclear power plant in their back yard.
If better safety controls and protocols were applied, I would be. Maybe I just don't know enough about it, but I think a lot of the problem with nuclear power is the same sort of mistaken impression as flying-vs-driving, or microwaves-vs-stovetop. With nuclear, the damage in the case of a failure can be much more catastrophic, and the risk factors are strange and scary, but the net ecological damage versus something like coal or fossil fuels is actually less, provided nothing goes Chernobyl or TMI. Of course there is the risk of a Chernobyl or TMI, but if people could actually work on the problem, solutions could be found. Me? I'd rather have nuclear now than wind, water, or solar that's always just over the horizon.
I've got no problem with the idea of playlists, I just don't like the fact that iTunes is so centered around that way of working, and it's heavily resistant to other methodologies. Still, that's not so bad, except for the fact that there's near-nil for other MP3 players out there for the Mac. (Although, to be honest, I currently only use a Mac at work, so I haven't had much time or incentive to go digging for alternate MP3 players.)
Folders. Files. Filenames.
I have the same problem, along with the fact that iTunes doesn't remove duplicate pointers or offline files (MP3 CD tracks, for instance) from the master list. Winamp's "Current Playlist" is the right idea, but they really need to put in more integration (drag/drop, for instance) between the Library and playlist.
Close, but you forgot the snippets of untranslated text.
I'm not gonna side with the revisionists but if someone believes otherwise, thats his business.
In a free-speech society, although it's no one's place to stamp out absurd revisionism or half-baked positions, I'd say it's your place-- duty, even-- to call them out on being absurd and half-baked. A free-speech society where all positions are accepted and tolerated without opposition (because, after all, "It's a free country!") totally counters the goal of free speech. In an arena of open debate, incorrect speech is put down by the example of better ideas, not by force, but it should still be opposed.
I'm not sure theres anything legal anyone could do about simply expressing pro Al Qaeda views, even with the Patriot act.
It's extralegal, but there are things such as overbearing tax audits (although I'm pretty sure this has been ruled illegal), unwarranted investigations (making sure your boss and associates know you're "under investigation", of course), trumping-up unrelated charges.
Yes, but what do you think?
Once a library (or any software, for that matter) gets touched by enough fingers, though, doesn't that become a large problem, even just in finding out who to ask?
OTOH, not everyone gives a care about the show notes, even if you do mention them. That's going to cut out a significant demographic. As someone trying to sell advertising, I'd rather accent the number that shows the LARGEST number of hits, that being the "downloaded" count.
If your advertiser was looking for more, you could either put a short survey on the site to "Nielson" some numbers, or you could just find another more willing advertiser.
Not only that, it's backwards-compatible. Say goodbye to your Playstation and PS2, unless you want to re-buy a whole lot of games.
Not if you EULAed it.
Okay, not if you EULAed it AND you were Sony.