"Ok, that is fair, but it would have seemed better to use something like "It was used twice in minutes? That makes no sense!" Or perhaps "They haven't left the building yet, how has it been used elsewhere?"
Those aren't the circumstances they're trying to put a stop to. What they're trying to do is prevent me from loaning you my season passport so you can get in for free.
"How many people upon reading the headline immediatly suspected that Microsoft is behind this?"
Funny, I suspected the growing popularity and the shitheaded zealousy surrounding FireFox.
Then again, MS is suspected of everything bad in the world around here. You guys are just kidding yourselves if you think Microsoft is FireFox's only enemy.
"Eventually everyone will have to deal with this sort of attack on the consumer (upgrade or watch us render your equipment unusable!)"
You mean like switching to a new processor line? Or how about developing a new OS that isn't very compatible with the old, so people have to buy new OS *and* new versions of their software compatible with it?
C'mon, let's at least pretend we're being consistent here.
"May I introduce you to OSX. It even runs on cheap intel hardware......"
Wait wait, let me see if I understand this: Dude is running away from Microsoft for enforcing support of certain hardware, so you're directing him towards... Apple?
"Anways, judging from the teaser, Exeter has improved by leaps and bounds from episode one."
Agreed. Now I'm not trying to dump on the show here, but if you don't have a taste for the original series, this isn't going to impress you.
That said, the production quality was quite good. Not only did they manage some great color (hard to do with the typical cameras used for fan films...) but they also made it aesthetically appealing while retaining most of the style of the original series. I know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, so I'm going to clarify a bit: It looks stylized instead of old.
Despite being an obnoxiously nitpicky artist, I was quite impressed.
"This just makes the case for the game even further."
I was just trying to explain why some peeps get so dip-shitted about sexual content in games/TV. They see kids having sex, they see that they didn't teach their kids that, they don't remember being being a kid so they assume it must be sexual content bombardment. (Actually, it probably has to do with the 'clean wholesome 50s era' not having much in terms of teen pregnancy or stds. Since the big difference is T&A on TV, I doubt much more thought has been put into the real cause of it.)
This has to be understood before anybody can reason with them. Me personally: I find it amusing that they think the problem is the locked content on the game itself. You have to travel amongst the greatest pron collection man has ever seen in order to get this patch.
"anyone who gets on that thing after a window just falls off on its own is a moron."
Funny, I envy those people boarding the shuttle despite the protective plate falling. Moron to some, brave to the rest. This mission was scary long before Slashdot's ignorant headline.
"It was just a temporary plastic protective panel that they place over the actual window while it just sits ready to launch. It's not really "attached" to shuttle like most pieces would be."
That explains why the Slashdot headline wasn't "Windows Crash hits Discovery!"
"Score: 4, Insightful!? Aren't we supposed to be geeks? Aren't geeks supposed to like problem solving?"
When there's karma involved, we're all cynical whiney bitches. "ooo! The article says it's cool! So if I point out just how silly and uncool it is (even if I have to really really reach), I'll be labeled as insightful!!"
"Excuse me... but Microsoft LEGITIMATELY LOST IN COURT on the Lindows case."
Uh huh. So.. they innocently chose the name Lindows, fought heavily against MS in the courts, then when they got their way, they suddenly decided to change their name to Linspire because they were worried about legal damage Microsoft could do to them over time. Funny, if the roles were reversed, it'd be assumed that they played on the "they big evil megacorp is picking on me!" story a marketing stunt.
"And if you look at that website, or if you look at the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com, and you're somehow confused into thinking that you are interacting with Microsoft, well then I have some very bad news for you.... you're seriously Dain Bramaged. Do not pass Go, do not attempt to tie your shoe laces, go directly out of the gene pool."
Heh. Since when was the law measured by common sense? I'm sure the arguments MS used in that case were amusing, but you have to consider what trademark law is about. First off, it is still clumsily trying to find its footing in the internet world. Secondly, cheap 'sound-alike' knock-offs are exactly what trademark law is trying to stop. For example: Trademark law prevents you from making a soda called 'Coak'. Why? This is silly! Nobody's going to read 'Coak' on the label and mistake it for Coke! That's true in that one circumstance, not true if you're at a Mc Donald's drive-thru and you order 'Coak' by accident. This circumstance is laughable in the case of MikeRoweSoft. No voice. (In other words, I agree that it's silly.) However, Microsoft still has to pursue it. If they don't go after MikeRoweSoft, then they can't realistically go after Micr0s0ft.com, either. Stupid? Yep. What'd you expect? When making judgements over law, how do you balance logic and common sense? I'm glad that's not my problem to solve.
"However people should not be attacked unless they are actually infringing a trademark. There are important legal limits on what constitutes a valid trademark and what constitutes an infringment of that mark. It is a Very Bad Thing when companies abuse the legal system to crush individuals and small entities that cannot afford a legal fight even when they are in fact not commiting infringment."
I feel for Mike Rowe. But let's be realistic: There is no way on earth that Michael Robertson had reason to say: "What? Microsoft's suing us for trademark infringement? I'm shocked!" I agree that it sucks that Microsoft can use legal means to grind somebody into the dirt, but I don't have sympathiy for jackasses that intentionally draw their fire.
"My submission was rejected. Not complaing... but mine made note of the MikeRoweSoft.com site. Microsoft's attempt to take the domain failed."
Google's case is about typo-squatting, i.e. intentionally mispelling a domain (slaashdot.org, for example) in order to send ads to people visiting popular sites. Microsoft's case was about trademark infringement. MikeRoweSoft isn't an attempt at squatting, rather Microsoft has to defend their trademarks against dilution. (Sort of like when they went after Lindows.) The stupid thing is that everybody was against Microsoft on both counts. In MikeRoweSoft's case, everybody felt MS should have just overlooked it. In Lindows case, everybody loves Linux and not Windows. There was a hope that MS would lose something very near and dear to them. (The reasons cited were to the tune of 'Windows should never have been granted as a trademark!' The reality is that Microsoft's had that trademark for well over 10 years AND it was distinctive to them. Nobody was crying over the Palm trademark even though palmtops existed well before the Palm Pilot. Everybody ignored the potential confusion caused by selling PCs with the 'Lindows' OS showing screenshots that look very much like Windows.)
Trademarks have to be exhaustively defended. Even little harmless offenses have to be challenged. If Microsoft hadn't gone after Lindows, and another company came along and did something more evil, Microsoft would have to go after Lindows THEN the new guy. In other words, if they don't deal with the minor infringements, they risk losing their trademarks. This is true of any company, not just Microsoft.
In any case, that's probably why your story was rejected. Prevaillance of those cases hinged on different factors.
"In case you hadn't paid attention, it is as much the evil business practices of MS as the crappiness of their software."
Pity niether of those are truely well known about here. Everybody thinks Bill Gates put a gun to a bunch of people's heads and demanded money. Everybdoy still giggles and snorts at BSOD jokes even though anybody who started with Win2k or XP would go "Huh?"
You're in denial if you don't think Slashdot isn't one big anti-Microsoft pitchfork party. Seriously, it's like reading a Babylon 5 fan site masquerading as a sci-fi news site that mostly talks about why people are smarter for watching B5 instead of Star Trek. "Rick Berman used his magical influence that.. for some reason couldn't keep Enterprise on the air.. to make Babylon 5 fade away. (Score: 5, Insightful)"
"NASA had visual, but I am hoping China can one-up NASA and put a microphone onboard so we can hear the exciting sounds of a space collision. Did George Lucas do this?"
Erm. Nearly every single movie or tv show that had a sequence in space has sound. Why's Lucas the scapegoat? I realize the prequels sucked, but geez. The worst part is, it's a really stupid thing to nitpick. Those sequences don't say there's sound in space any more than they say an orchestra follows the characters around and plays appropriate music.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ok, that is fair, but it would have seemed better to use something like "It was used twice in minutes? That makes no sense!" Or perhaps "They haven't left the building yet, how has it been used elsewhere?"
Those aren't the circumstances they're trying to put a stop to. What they're trying to do is prevent me from loaning you my season passport so you can get in for free.
"How many people upon reading the headline immediatly suspected that Microsoft is behind this?"
Funny, I suspected the growing popularity and the shitheaded zealousy surrounding FireFox.
Then again, MS is suspected of everything bad in the world around here. You guys are just kidding yourselves if you think Microsoft is FireFox's only enemy.
"Did SEGA have first mover advantage with the Dreamcast?"
Yes. But the advantage wasn't enough.
Advantage != Automatic Win.
"Eventually everyone will have to deal with this sort of attack on the consumer (upgrade or watch us render your equipment unusable!)"
You mean like switching to a new processor line? Or how about developing a new OS that isn't very compatible with the old, so people have to buy new OS *and* new versions of their software compatible with it?
C'mon, let's at least pretend we're being consistent here.
"Problem is, they won't listen. Society tends to be fairly apathetic about this sort of thing."
To be fair, Slashdot cries WOLF!!! at every move Microsoft makes. Apathy towards Slashdot rantings is quite understandable.
"May I introduce you to OSX. It even runs on cheap intel hardware......"
Wait wait, let me see if I understand this: Dude is running away from Microsoft for enforcing support of certain hardware, so you're directing him towards... Apple?
"isn't this a case of indirect industrial price-fixing? "
Not until they actually do it.
"I know it may look like parent is insulting grandparent, but this is a quote from the movie 'Demolition Man' ..... http://imdb.com/title/tt0106697/"
*Ding* You have been fined one credit for spoiling the joke.
"Anways, judging from the teaser, Exeter has improved by leaps and bounds from episode one."
Agreed. Now I'm not trying to dump on the show here, but if you don't have a taste for the original series, this isn't going to impress you.
That said, the production quality was quite good. Not only did they manage some great color (hard to do with the typical cameras used for fan films...) but they also made it aesthetically appealing while retaining most of the style of the original series. I know that sounds like a contradiction in terms, so I'm going to clarify a bit: It looks stylized instead of old.
Despite being an obnoxiously nitpicky artist, I was quite impressed.
"This just makes the case for the game even further."
I was just trying to explain why some peeps get so dip-shitted about sexual content in games/TV. They see kids having sex, they see that they didn't teach their kids that, they don't remember being being a kid so they assume it must be sexual content bombardment. (Actually, it probably has to do with the 'clean wholesome 50s era' not having much in terms of teen pregnancy or stds. Since the big difference is T&A on TV, I doubt much more thought has been put into the real cause of it.)
This has to be understood before anybody can reason with them. Me personally: I find it amusing that they think the problem is the locked content on the game itself. You have to travel amongst the greatest pron collection man has ever seen in order to get this patch.
"Somebody really need to get their priorities right!"
To be fair, there is a good deal more teen pregnancy going on than teen toasting-cops-with flamethrowersancy...
"Great, so now your desk is in violation of copyright law."
In high school I was suspended for breaking copyright law on my desk. Just a little tip: Signing somebody else's name on it doesn't work.
"Good thing there isn't a portable Xbox... man, that thing would weigh like 10 lbs. =)"
:P
Good thing there isn't a portable Linux machine, man that thing would have to have a 101 key keyboard. =)
This joke's easy to make.
"anyone who gets on that thing after a window just falls off on its own is a moron."
Funny, I envy those people boarding the shuttle despite the protective plate falling. Moron to some, brave to the rest. This mission was scary long before Slashdot's ignorant headline.
"It was just a temporary plastic protective panel that they place over the actual window while it just sits ready to launch. It's not really "attached" to shuttle like most pieces would be."
That explains why the Slashdot headline wasn't "Windows Crash hits Discovery!"
"Also, you're crazy if you think people aren't going to flock to the PS3 at $399 anyway."
Nah, I know there are a lot of dumb people out there.
My point was I doubt ppl'll buy PS3s just for an HD player.
"And their players really can't compete with a gaming machine, so I don't know what their strategy is here."
They can if the PS3 is released at $400.
It's all academic anyway, we don't know enough right now. Movie selection, or lack thereof, can have tragic results on either format.
"Thats pretty cool stuff, thanks for pointing out her contribution!"
That's an interesting way to describe her pic... Who says geeks aren't gentlemen?
"Score: 4, Insightful!? Aren't we supposed to be geeks? Aren't geeks supposed to like problem solving?"
When there's karma involved, we're all cynical whiney bitches. "ooo! The article says it's cool! So if I point out just how silly and uncool it is (even if I have to really really reach), I'll be labeled as insightful!!"
"Excuse me... but Microsoft LEGITIMATELY LOST IN COURT on the Lindows case."
Uh huh. So.. they innocently chose the name Lindows, fought heavily against MS in the courts, then when they got their way, they suddenly decided to change their name to Linspire because they were worried about legal damage Microsoft could do to them over time. Funny, if the roles were reversed, it'd be assumed that they played on the "they big evil megacorp is picking on me!" story a marketing stunt.
"And if you look at that website, or if you look at the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com, and you're somehow confused into thinking that you are interacting with Microsoft, well then I have some very bad news for you.... you're seriously Dain Bramaged. Do not pass Go, do not attempt to tie your shoe laces, go directly out of the gene pool."
Heh. Since when was the law measured by common sense? I'm sure the arguments MS used in that case were amusing, but you have to consider what trademark law is about. First off, it is still clumsily trying to find its footing in the internet world. Secondly, cheap 'sound-alike' knock-offs are exactly what trademark law is trying to stop. For example: Trademark law prevents you from making a soda called 'Coak'. Why? This is silly! Nobody's going to read 'Coak' on the label and mistake it for Coke! That's true in that one circumstance, not true if you're at a Mc Donald's drive-thru and you order 'Coak' by accident. This circumstance is laughable in the case of MikeRoweSoft. No voice. (In other words, I agree that it's silly.) However, Microsoft still has to pursue it. If they don't go after MikeRoweSoft, then they can't realistically go after Micr0s0ft.com, either. Stupid? Yep. What'd you expect? When making judgements over law, how do you balance logic and common sense? I'm glad that's not my problem to solve.
"However people should not be attacked unless they are actually infringing a trademark. There are important legal limits on what constitutes a valid trademark and what constitutes an infringment of that mark. It is a Very Bad Thing when companies abuse the legal system to crush individuals and small entities that cannot afford a legal fight even when they are in fact not commiting infringment."
I feel for Mike Rowe. But let's be realistic: There is no way on earth that Michael Robertson had reason to say: "What? Microsoft's suing us for trademark infringement? I'm shocked!" I agree that it sucks that Microsoft can use legal means to grind somebody into the dirt, but I don't have sympathiy for jackasses that intentionally draw their fire.
"Shame. I think the viz on my 3DO was one of the better ones to date."
Supposedly the Jaguar CD (remember,the old Atari faux 64 bit system?) had the best light synth. Interestingly enough, it was done by Jeff Minter.
"My submission was rejected. Not complaing... but mine made note of the MikeRoweSoft.com site. Microsoft's attempt to take the domain failed."
Google's case is about typo-squatting, i.e. intentionally mispelling a domain (slaashdot.org, for example) in order to send ads to people visiting popular sites. Microsoft's case was about trademark infringement. MikeRoweSoft isn't an attempt at squatting, rather Microsoft has to defend their trademarks against dilution. (Sort of like when they went after Lindows.) The stupid thing is that everybody was against Microsoft on both counts. In MikeRoweSoft's case, everybody felt MS should have just overlooked it. In Lindows case, everybody loves Linux and not Windows. There was a hope that MS would lose something very near and dear to them. (The reasons cited were to the tune of 'Windows should never have been granted as a trademark!' The reality is that Microsoft's had that trademark for well over 10 years AND it was distinctive to them. Nobody was crying over the Palm trademark even though palmtops existed well before the Palm Pilot. Everybody ignored the potential confusion caused by selling PCs with the 'Lindows' OS showing screenshots that look very much like Windows.)
Trademarks have to be exhaustively defended. Even little harmless offenses have to be challenged. If Microsoft hadn't gone after Lindows, and another company came along and did something more evil, Microsoft would have to go after Lindows THEN the new guy. In other words, if they don't deal with the minor infringements, they risk losing their trademarks. This is true of any company, not just Microsoft.
In any case, that's probably why your story was rejected. Prevaillance of those cases hinged on different factors.
"In case you hadn't paid attention, it is as much the evil business practices of MS as the crappiness of their software."
.. for some reason couldn't keep Enterprise on the air.. to make Babylon 5 fade away. (Score: 5, Insightful)"
Pity niether of those are truely well known about here. Everybody thinks Bill Gates put a gun to a bunch of people's heads and demanded money. Everybdoy still giggles and snorts at BSOD jokes even though anybody who started with Win2k or XP would go "Huh?"
You're in denial if you don't think Slashdot isn't one big anti-Microsoft pitchfork party. Seriously, it's like reading a Babylon 5 fan site masquerading as a sci-fi news site that mostly talks about why people are smarter for watching B5 instead of Star Trek. "Rick Berman used his magical influence that
"NASA had visual, but I am hoping China can one-up NASA and put a microphone onboard so we can hear the exciting sounds of a space collision. Did George Lucas do this?"
Erm. Nearly every single movie or tv show that had a sequence in space has sound. Why's Lucas the scapegoat? I realize the prequels sucked, but geez. The worst part is, it's a really stupid thing to nitpick. Those sequences don't say there's sound in space any more than they say an orchestra follows the characters around and plays appropriate music.
"All these "deep impact" projects are starting to freak me out. Does the One World Government know something we don't?"
They know that it's a realistic possibility. They also know that there ain't a whole lot we can do when something finally does show up.