Polarized 3D isn't limited to two planes. The polarized filter ensures the left and right image each go to the right eye, and it can look 100% like you look at the world normally.
The problem is that the perspective doesn't change when you move your head, so when you do it looks like the movie is made of paper cutouts placed at different depths (but still not limited to two). There's also that polarization is sensitive to the angle from which you're viewing the screen.
For the absolutely best effect you'd need head tracking. Of course the image would have to be rendered in real time. But then you can really create the impression that the monitor has a hole in it through which you're looking at say, a game.
Steve Grand is funding the development on kickstarter.
He's decided to ignore traditional publishers and do everything himself to make sure it comes out right. Probably a good idea too, Creatures isn't a very normal game, and having a publisher fund it would almost certainly mean they'd try to dumb it down.
This usage should fall under nominative use use, though.
The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute)
Check.
The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol)
Check, impossible to use any less than a single word.
The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.
I see nothing in "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion" that suggests endorsement by the Tolkien Estate, check.
Additionally, this means the estate shouldn't have anything to worry about:
Furthermore, if a use is found to be nominative, then by the definition of non-trademark uses, it can not dilute the trademark.[2]
It's been mentioned before it's not perfectly pressurized and can't remain in space indefinitely. Even if it was perfectly pressurized it'd still need to get supplies from somewhere. So it would become useless pretty fast.
Also, the ISS is in an unstable orbit and must be re-boosted periodically. The shuttle would need to do the same as well, or eventually decay and burn up in the atmosphere.
I think ending up in a museum is a much better fate than that of Columbia.
The problem is that the free market doesn't work all that well when there are just 3 options for an entire class of product. Perhaps that can be fixed by encouraging competition.
They say they won't publish anything, only send it to newspapers. But that means that things only get published if a newspaper finds it interesting enough to publish, and they probably won't post the entire source document either. And if nobody is willing to post it, nobody will ever see it.
I'm fine with wikileaks alternatives and don't particularly care about Assange, but I want raw data, and lots of it. And no dependence on media organizations.
They won't be getting it. Spreadshirt is like cafepress and sells stuff for everybody. It's also a german shop, so I doubt they hand out credit card info to anybody. Europe has quite tight regulations on that kind of thing.
Nope, we disagree quite badly here. The "eventually" I am referring to is a much shorter one than you say.
I think you see copyright as an inherent right of the creator. I see it as completely the reverse, a temporary privilege granted to entice creation. As such, the proper length is the one that maximizes production. Too short, and people will create less, because they won't have enough time to make money. Too long, and somebody who could be making something new (and possibly their descendants) gets to sit idle, so they also create less. Thus the right length is necessarily significantly shorter than a human lifetime to motivate the creation of multiple works in one's lifetime.
In the spirit of not screwing people over, copyright shouldn't immediately when a family member dies, but I completely disagree that the duration of their lives should have anything to do with the length of copyright. Children and relatives also should have a reason to go create their own works if they want money.
I see things like the Tolkien Estate as a perversion that shouldn't be able to exist.
If you use KDE, and insert a CD, or connect a USB drive you get a popup offering things like opening it in a file manager, or looking for photos on it, and it makes an icon in the systray too.
I don't have an ubuntu box on hand right now to make 100% sure, but I'll try to get back to you later.
1) avoid acronyms and abbreviations. Everyone is guilty of this, but Linux is worst - do you think/dev/sda means ANYTHING to a Linux noob? Well I can tell you for a fact that it doesn't, because I've been helping one. She didn't even know that was referring to her primary disk drive until I told her (and she's a tech geek in every way except Linux - and yes married [to my best friend, but he's less of a geek than she is]).
There are several things here:
1. It's a device file. Changing names for those can lead to problems with little benefit 2. It is hard to give them intuitive names. You'd prefer/dev/scsi/hard-disk/primary/master perhaps? But now it's long and still confusing. What's a primary master? Or maybe/dev/scsi/INTEL_SSDSA2M080G2GC would be better? (that's what my disk calls itself). This stuff isn't for end users, and tends to come out ugly any way you slice it. Something of this sort was tried before with devfs a few years back. It was a huge pain to switch over to, had little benefit, and didn't stick. 3. As an end user, you're not supposed to mess with this stuff in/dev anyway. The GUI is supposed to make it accessible easily.
2) Program names need to tell the user what they do. Do you know what "Ruby" is? I'd guess a color or a gem, not a scripting language. Windows isn't very good at that, either (Microsoft Silverlight? wtf is that?!)- Apple is much better (for instance, iTunes makes a pretty nice mnemonic for what it does, but they've had their failures too - QuickTime?! The only time I want time to go quick is when I'm working and not under a tight deadline).
This is already mostly solved. In my Ubuntu install stuff appears as:
in the "Internet" section:
BitTorrent Client KTorrent
Seems pretty clear.
Ruby is something you shouldn't even see really, it might be needed for some program to work, but those are implementation details.
It seems to me that you're taking the current situation, removing copyright from it, then recreating the current situation using different tools. I don't really see the point if everything works the same way it does now.
Every studio would need its own chain of theatres. That means every single studio has to be constantly pumping movies out to make it pay, and new ones can't get started because it requires a huge investment. Decent movies can be made quite cheaply, but movie theatres are expensive and must be paid for over years.
And I'm saying since George Lucas is still alive and kicking and still in the movie business, his Star Wars copyright shouldn't be up for expiration discussion. Shakespeare has been dead a long time. I'm sure he doesn't mind they made a bad urban interpretation of his work.
Why?
Well you are at least the third person to say this, so I'm just asking where does it say this is true? The Constitution gives congress the power to grant copyright to individuals. It doesn't give consumers the right to grant "temporary monopolies". I don't think it says anything about for the good fo society or for the consumer (but I may be mistaken, as I'm only going on people's summaries in this discussion about what it says).
And who is the constitution written for, and what is the point of it? Where does the government get the power to grant copyrights if not from the people who made it?
I think it's more than clear in:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It doesn't say "to promote the profit of the authors", but "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e, to promote general advancement, to benefit everybody.
Besides, from a practical standpoint, why would I vote for somebody else to get a privileged position without getting something in exchange for it?
Two things. First of all, your aim contradicts your idea. Specifically, your aim places the act of producing above people actually experiencing what is produced.
Nobody will experience it if it's not made in the first place.
Few big works will be made if the moment it's released the first person who wants can go and sell all the copies they want without giving back.
But I'm interested. For instance, how would one make a movie without copyright, and how would quality be maximized?
The fact that people may get sick of an original idea is not germane to the discussion of copyright
I'm just saying what I think would have happened if copyright was 14 years:
In 1991, the copyright for the original would have expired, and everybody who wanted could go and make their own movie in the universe. With something as popular as Star Wars I imagine there'd be 20 movies by now, just like there are what, 30 movies based on Romeo and Juliet?
I think that as a consequence every interesting angle to it would have been done to death several years ago, and so Lucas would have to come up with something new to have any hope of selling it.
We don't have copyright laws to appease the consumer.
Yes we do. We, the people (consumers mainly), allow authors a temporary monopoly on their work because we think the tradeoff is worth it. Should enough people decide it's not working well anymore it can be changed.
Just to clarify, the special edition would have been a harder sell even in 1991, because with the copyright expired on the original trilogy, it would have had to compete with a free version of itself that just didn't have new special effects. Not that there is anything wrong with this, as if it were actually worthwhile on its own merits, it would have been profitable anyway. But as it stands, right now a significant portion of the special edition sales were of a result of consumers wanting a new copy of the old films and possibly having little to no interest in the modifications.
Right.
But, what does society get from all this?
Copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So are we really promoting progress of the Arts by letting Lucas make lots of cash by re-releasing the same movie several times, slightly touched up? Wouldn't the Arts progress a bit faster if he actually had to come up with something new?
The other result would be that in 1991, I would have been able to write unlicensed material using Star Wars characters and lore and sell it as my own. I think is the more interesting discussion, as I'm not sure how comfortable I am with authors having to deal with this sort of thing during their lifetime. There are, of course, compromises to be made on this. A full copyright could last 14 years, and then the author could retain a limited copyright protection in the form of a monopoly on commercial licensing until death. That way, Lucas could make money off of Star Wars until 1991, and then after that, I could freely burn a copy of the original movie for my friend, but I could not sell it to anybody at a profit. I would also therefore be able to write my own prequel trilogy if I wanted, but I could not sell it until after his death. That way, he gets fully control his franchise canon until his death (at which point his canon is finished in my eyes anyway), but at the same time we get to assimilate some portion of his contributions to society much sooner.
Well, again, what does the society gets out of it? If somebody invents an useful literary brick and had plenty time to make a good amount of profit from it, what are we gaining by waiting for the author to die before starting to make neat stuff with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Ehh, no.
Polarized 3D isn't limited to two planes. The polarized filter ensures the left and right image each go to the right eye, and it can look 100% like you look at the world normally.
The problem is that the perspective doesn't change when you move your head, so when you do it looks like the movie is made of paper cutouts placed at different depths (but still not limited to two). There's also that polarization is sensitive to the angle from which you're viewing the screen.
For the absolutely best effect you'd need head tracking. Of course the image would have to be rendered in real time. But then you can really create the impression that the monitor has a hole in it through which you're looking at say, a game.
Is Meow Skywalker coming next?
That's not the same game
This is about this one.
Back when they were released they required good hardware to play. Definitely not something that could be made run on a C64.
Same here.
Don't care at all for things like Steam and Impulse though. Plain installer download for me, please.
That's crazy, get all 3 at gog.com for $5.99
Steve Grand is funding the development on kickstarter.
He's decided to ignore traditional publishers and do everything himself to make sure it comes out right. Probably a good idea too, Creatures isn't a very normal game, and having a publisher fund it would almost certainly mean they'd try to dumb it down.
The command does exist. It even includes security provisions for insisting on finishing the process before it allows doing anything else.
But of course whether it actually does what it's supposed to depends on the firmware.
This usage should fall under nominative use use, though.
Check.
Check, impossible to use any less than a single word.
I see nothing in "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion" that suggests endorsement by the Tolkien Estate, check.
Additionally, this means the estate shouldn't have anything to worry about:
It's been mentioned before it's not perfectly pressurized and can't remain in space indefinitely. Even if it was perfectly pressurized it'd still need to get supplies from somewhere. So it would become useless pretty fast.
Also, the ISS is in an unstable orbit and must be re-boosted periodically. The shuttle would need to do the same as well, or eventually decay and burn up in the atmosphere.
I think ending up in a museum is a much better fate than that of Columbia.
I see you've studied Machiavelli well.
Buy indie games and a GP2X maybe.
The problem is that the free market doesn't work all that well when there are just 3 options for an entire class of product. Perhaps that can be fixed by encouraging competition.
Already been doing that for a while.
Problem is it's hard to do worse than not buying anything they make when they pull another stunt. I guess there's donating to people they sue.
Openleaks seems like the wrong approach, though.
They say they won't publish anything, only send it to newspapers. But that means that things only get published if a newspaper finds it interesting enough to publish, and they probably won't post the entire source document either. And if nobody is willing to post it, nobody will ever see it.
I'm fine with wikileaks alternatives and don't particularly care about Assange, but I want raw data, and lots of it. And no dependence on media organizations.
They won't be getting it. Spreadshirt is like cafepress and sells stuff for everybody. It's also a german shop, so I doubt they hand out credit card info to anybody. Europe has quite tight regulations on that kind of thing.
But alternatively, you can mail the money
Just look in the shop, there's plenty gear with the logo as well.
Nope, we disagree quite badly here. The "eventually" I am referring to is a much shorter one than you say.
I think you see copyright as an inherent right of the creator. I see it as completely the reverse, a temporary privilege granted to entice creation. As such, the proper length is the one that maximizes production. Too short, and people will create less, because they won't have enough time to make money. Too long, and somebody who could be making something new (and possibly their descendants) gets to sit idle, so they also create less. Thus the right length is necessarily significantly shorter than a human lifetime to motivate the creation of multiple works in one's lifetime.
In the spirit of not screwing people over, copyright shouldn't immediately when a family member dies, but I completely disagree that the duration of their lives should have anything to do with the length of copyright. Children and relatives also should have a reason to go create their own works if they want money.
I see things like the Tolkien Estate as a perversion that shouldn't be able to exist.
You select it in the menu.
If you use KDE, and insert a CD, or connect a USB drive you get a popup offering things like opening it in a file manager, or looking for photos on it, and it makes an icon in the systray too.
I don't have an ubuntu box on hand right now to make 100% sure, but I'll try to get back to you later.
There are several things here:
1. It's a device file. Changing names for those can lead to problems with little benefit /dev/scsi/hard-disk/primary/master perhaps? But now it's long and still confusing. What's a primary master? Or maybe /dev/scsi/INTEL_SSDSA2M080G2GC would be better? (that's what my disk calls itself). This stuff isn't for end users, and tends to come out ugly any way you slice it. Something of this sort was tried before with devfs a few years back. It was a huge pain to switch over to, had little benefit, and didn't stick. /dev anyway. The GUI is supposed to make it accessible easily.
2. It is hard to give them intuitive names. You'd prefer
3. As an end user, you're not supposed to mess with this stuff in
This is already mostly solved. In my Ubuntu install stuff appears as:
in the "Internet" section:
BitTorrent Client
KTorrent
Seems pretty clear.
Ruby is something you shouldn't even see really, it might be needed for some program to work, but those are implementation details.
It seems to me that you're taking the current situation, removing copyright from it, then recreating the current situation using different tools. I don't really see the point if everything works the same way it does now.
That's very inefficient.
Every studio would need its own chain of theatres. That means every single studio has to be constantly pumping movies out to make it pay, and new ones can't get started because it requires a huge investment. Decent movies can be made quite cheaply, but movie theatres are expensive and must be paid for over years.
Why?
And who is the constitution written for, and what is the point of it? Where does the government get the power to grant copyrights if not from the people who made it?
I think it's more than clear in:
I see it implied in:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It doesn't say "to promote the profit of the authors", but "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e, to promote general advancement, to benefit everybody.
Besides, from a practical standpoint, why would I vote for somebody else to get a privileged position without getting something in exchange for it?
Nobody will experience it if it's not made in the first place.
Few big works will be made if the moment it's released the first person who wants can go and sell all the copies they want without giving back.
But I'm interested. For instance, how would one make a movie without copyright, and how would quality be maximized?
I'm just saying what I think would have happened if copyright was 14 years:
In 1991, the copyright for the original would have expired, and everybody who wanted could go and make their own movie in the universe. With something as popular as Star Wars I imagine there'd be 20 movies by now, just like there are what, 30 movies based on Romeo and Juliet?
I think that as a consequence every interesting angle to it would have been done to death several years ago, and so Lucas would have to come up with something new to have any hope of selling it.
Yes we do. We, the people (consumers mainly), allow authors a temporary monopoly on their work because we think the tradeoff is worth it. Should enough people decide it's not working well anymore it can be changed.
Right.
But, what does society get from all this?
Copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So are we really promoting progress of the Arts by letting Lucas make lots of cash by re-releasing the same movie several times, slightly touched up? Wouldn't the Arts progress a bit faster if he actually had to come up with something new?
Well, again, what does the society gets out of it? If somebody invents an useful literary brick and had plenty time to make a good amount of profit from it, what are we gaining by waiting for the author to die before starting to make neat stuff with it?