As one player states, 'The game for me probably will be a lost love. Sort of like seeing your spouse with Alzheimer's. Outwardly, everything appears the same as it always has, but you know that beneath the surface, things will never be the same.'
I'd say that if this causes "one player" to spend a little more time in reality and acquire (if only by gamer standards) a bit of perspective, they've done him a huge favor.
In fact, just explaining this maneuver may constitute aiding and abetting. "And for you to publish it!" Chernyak gasps.
This seems to be less a question of "views" than yapping to a reporter about how she's fearlessly committing (supposedly) a DMCA violation. Being a attention-seeking, self-dramatizing, "gasping" civil disobedient isn't going to go over so well with your law firm.
As always, I'd at least credit people like this with some courage if they didn't start bawling when they find the trouble they went looking for.
EA criticizes Ubisoft over their non-competes, when 1) EA has been criticized for something completely different and 2) EA is rumored to be planning a takeover of them. I'm missing where the "I'd actually laugh at this if I didn't find it so disturbing." comes in...
A guy who lived across the hall from me in college, in the dorm, had a roof outside his second floor window. He conjured up a snow shovel...
And then Professor Snape took five points away from our House. Which proved crucial when Gryffindor (now, here's a shocker!) picked up a pile of last-second points to win again.
Last I checked, citing a few lines from a newspaper article had a term: 'fair use'.
It depends on the use. Quoting a few lines of a newspaper article in the middle of your own text is clearly protected. Stitching together multiple headlines, photos and first paragraphs to make a freestanding "newspaper" is not, although I don't think Google News rises to that level. At any rate, I'm sure they can afford plenty of attorneys.
The issue is whether the excerpted part loses the overall impact of the whole. The closest ruling that comes to mind is that porn thumbnails were ruled to be sufficiently arousing in their own right that copying them is infringement, not fair use.
Could you survive a 50-foot fall into a snow bank like Luke Skywalker did?
Huh? Jamie Pierre just broke the skiing cliff-drop record with a 245-footer in Grand Targhee. I haven't seen the video yet, but supposedly he didn't even land it cleanly. (The New Zealander who previously held the record hit a 225-footer into slush, landing on his back with a backpack full of foam.)
C'mon, a 50-footer won't even get you into a movie nowadays unless you throw at least a 720...
Nvu comes from the Mozilla editor codebase, although I don't know if the two have forked or if they're kept in sync at all. Comparing Nvu with the current Mozilla editor -- Nvu has many more features, some of which (site control, CSS editing) are great, some of which (the different link attributes like "date" and "crush") are stupid and some of which (the "New" command, for heaven's sake) don't work. I still prefer Mozilla for light editing, but Nvu would be better (although probably inadequate) for heavier use.
Anyway, "suite" here is only 12-13 megs -- it's not like installing Office or Open Office.
The company is based in Russia and the guy is obviously not a native English speaker. I assume he doesn't have the slightest idea how US law works or how it's enforced.
Sure, but nonetheless I don't see a large crew of Senators all getting involved in trashing each other's Wikipedia pages. On the other hand, it's exactly the kind of thing a large crew of staffers from different offices would start doing.
Gone is the day where our politians know nothing about technology.
Exhibit A would be the person (from Ron Wyden's office, apparently?) getting cited for "1 extreme POV rewrite to Rambus".
DC underlings all hang out together, drink together, live together and brag incessantly to each other about who is the most important. My guess would be that this has nothing to do with the legislators themselves and everything to do with with interns generating ammunition for trash-talking at Lulu's. The Senators themselves aren't organized enough to be doing this in such large numbers, nor do they know what Wikipedia is. It's the 19-year-olds doing it.
The classic case of this (and research exemption isn't new, this is a refinement of it) is if your pharmaceutical company is developing drug A and a competitor has patented drug B, you can synthesize your own B substance and use it to compare the relative performance of the two without concern for patent infringement. Or you can observe in detail what B does and use it to design a different drug C with a similar effect.
(For the sake of argument, let's pretend I don't realize that you and the "Is that how you sleep at night?" guy are both wearing head-to-toe Target and Banana Republic right now and that I'm impressed with your selfless ideological purity.)
To my mind, and YMMV, failing to go out of my way to find socks and dental floss made to Western standards of labor law, and making my own when it turns out that such a thing no longer exists is arguably at one level of Evil. Actively pursuing a business venture to provide China with the infrastructure of censorship is a whole other level of Evil.
I'm sufficiently familiar with Pointless Nerd Argumentation to understand the logic of "A is vaguely similar to B, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between A and B." I simply reject it.
To my mind, there's a significant difference between buying a pair of Chinese-made shoelaces and offering a search engine that blocks links about Tibet and Taiwan. YMMV.
...as indeed it must do, since US law is quite harsh on boards that take actions which could damage shareholder value...
This bit of stupidity is a staple of posters here already -- it's not like you need to link to another continent for it.
US law requires boards to operate in shareholders' interest in a broad sense, i.e. that they're not supposed to pillage the company to enrich themselves. It doesn't mean that they're required to take every short-term opportunity to grab another dollar. (How do you think they make charitable donations or provide sponsorships?)
There is zero possibility that an any legal case could be made against the Google board if they had declined to operate in China under these restrictions.
I was envisioning "himself" along the lines of Neil Patrick Harris playing "himself" in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle.
But, yeah -- I hit submit on the original comment and realized "Gee, some pedantic dweeb is going to use this to challenge my delicate, crystalline logic about Uwe Boll and Gary Coleman."
So far, only Gary Coleman has been cast for the movie, to play himself.
I don't see Boll's streak turning around on this one, either. Surely Todd Bridges would have been a better fit for Postal: The Movie, no? Maybe Coleman will be playing a gay cowboy or suicide bomber, and Boll is angling for a Golden Globe.
Blackberry is not going to shut down and Toyota and Honda are not going to stop making hybrids. They're in business to make money, not to be martyrs for the anti-patent crowd.
That said, obviously holding your own files, both applications and data, is safer (part of why I don't have the slightest interest in this supposed Google Office Suite) but not for any reason having to do with patents.
If it were the case that Google had leverage with the Chinese government, and if they could use that leverage to eradicate censorship in China, then perhaps the arguments of hypocrisy would hold water. This, however, is not the case.
Even if refusing to engage in censorship were purely symbolic, I don't think supporting such a symbolic act is as obviously stupid as you keep insisting it is.
But I disagree, anyway. You don't think Google (or Google, together with Yahoo and Microsoft, once they were shamed into putting up a united front) have leverage over China's Internet access policies? Obviously they don't have the power to transform the country, but Internet filtering? Of course they do.
It seems to put the same boilerplate on every search. OK, Chinese users will know there is censorship (as if they didn't know that already -- China isn't North Korea where they don't necessarily know other ideas exist) but this is hardly consistent with what I and the grandparent understood you to be saying, that specific items were noted as having been censored.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I'd also marvel at the writer's suggestion that said comment reflects "quiet resignation", rather than "completely out of his/her freaking mind".
I'd say that if this causes "one player" to spend a little more time in reality and acquire (if only by gamer standards) a bit of perspective, they've done him a huge favor.
This seems to be less a question of "views" than yapping to a reporter about how she's fearlessly committing (supposedly) a DMCA violation. Being a attention-seeking, self-dramatizing, "gasping" civil disobedient isn't going to go over so well with your law firm.
As always, I'd at least credit people like this with some courage if they didn't start bawling when they find the trouble they went looking for.
EA criticizes Ubisoft over their non-competes, when 1) EA has been criticized for something completely different and 2) EA is rumored to be planning a takeover of them. I'm missing where the "I'd actually laugh at this if I didn't find it so disturbing." comes in...
Not even they do, it would seem...
And then Professor Snape took five points away from our House. Which proved crucial when Gryffindor (now, here's a shocker!) picked up a pile of last-second points to win again.
It depends on the use. Quoting a few lines of a newspaper article in the middle of your own text is clearly protected. Stitching together multiple headlines, photos and first paragraphs to make a freestanding "newspaper" is not, although I don't think Google News rises to that level. At any rate, I'm sure they can afford plenty of attorneys.
The issue is whether the excerpted part loses the overall impact of the whole. The closest ruling that comes to mind is that porn thumbnails were ruled to be sufficiently arousing in their own right that copying them is infringement, not fair use.
Huh? Jamie Pierre just broke the skiing cliff-drop record with a 245-footer in Grand Targhee. I haven't seen the video yet, but supposedly he didn't even land it cleanly. (The New Zealander who previously held the record hit a 225-footer into slush, landing on his back with a backpack full of foam.)
C'mon, a 50-footer won't even get you into a movie nowadays unless you throw at least a 720...
Anyway, "suite" here is only 12-13 megs -- it's not like installing Office or Open Office.
An odd choice as a PR figure, though...
Gone is the day where our politians know nothing about technology.
Exhibit A would be the person (from Ron Wyden's office, apparently?) getting cited for "1 extreme POV rewrite to Rambus".
DC underlings all hang out together, drink together, live together and brag incessantly to each other about who is the most important. My guess would be that this has nothing to do with the legislators themselves and everything to do with with interns generating ammunition for trash-talking at Lulu's. The Senators themselves aren't organized enough to be doing this in such large numbers, nor do they know what Wikipedia is. It's the 19-year-olds doing it.
The classic case of this (and research exemption isn't new, this is a refinement of it) is if your pharmaceutical company is developing drug A and a competitor has patented drug B, you can synthesize your own B substance and use it to compare the relative performance of the two without concern for patent infringement. Or you can observe in detail what B does and use it to design a different drug C with a similar effect.
2) I was about to joke about this, but it appears that the Professor actually is the cousin of Sacha "Ali G" Baron Cohen.
To my mind, and YMMV, failing to go out of my way to find socks and dental floss made to Western standards of labor law, and making my own when it turns out that such a thing no longer exists is arguably at one level of Evil. Actively pursuing a business venture to provide China with the infrastructure of censorship is a whole other level of Evil.
I'm sufficiently familiar with Pointless Nerd Argumentation to understand the logic of "A is vaguely similar to B, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between A and B." I simply reject it.
To my mind, there's a significant difference between buying a pair of Chinese-made shoelaces and offering a search engine that blocks links about Tibet and Taiwan. YMMV.
This bit of stupidity is a staple of posters here already -- it's not like you need to link to another continent for it.
US law requires boards to operate in shareholders' interest in a broad sense, i.e. that they're not supposed to pillage the company to enrich themselves. It doesn't mean that they're required to take every short-term opportunity to grab another dollar. (How do you think they make charitable donations or provide sponsorships?)
There is zero possibility that an any legal case could be made against the Google board if they had declined to operate in China under these restrictions.
But, yeah -- I hit submit on the original comment and realized "Gee, some pedantic dweeb is going to use this to challenge my delicate, crystalline logic about Uwe Boll and Gary Coleman."
I don't see Boll's streak turning around on this one, either. Surely Todd Bridges would have been a better fit for Postal: The Movie, no? Maybe Coleman will be playing a gay cowboy or suicide bomber, and Boll is angling for a Golden Globe.
They're not violating any law. They were subpoenaed for information and are contesting it.
At this point, they might as well hand it over. The only PR they're going to get out of this is "China, China, China".
...but otherwise I'd be skeptical of an analyst who thinks iTMS is a "web site".
That said, obviously holding your own files, both applications and data, is safer (part of why I don't have the slightest interest in this supposed Google Office Suite) but not for any reason having to do with patents.
Even if refusing to engage in censorship were purely symbolic, I don't think supporting such a symbolic act is as obviously stupid as you keep insisting it is.
But I disagree, anyway. You don't think Google (or Google, together with Yahoo and Microsoft, once they were shamed into putting up a united front) have leverage over China's Internet access policies? Obviously they don't have the power to transform the country, but Internet filtering? Of course they do.
It seems to put the same boilerplate on every search. OK, Chinese users will know there is censorship (as if they didn't know that already -- China isn't North Korea where they don't necessarily know other ideas exist) but this is hardly consistent with what I and the grandparent understood you to be saying, that specific items were noted as having been censored.
I'd say two misunderstandings, and that's only because I'm letting "readers" slide...