Apple has sayings like "Think different", Microsoft is more goal oriented with "Where do you want to go today?"
They're both lying. Apple let's me do the things I need and mostly stays out of the way, while MS is taking the slow boat to hell. That's why I will never move past Win2k, and why I have a powerbook.
Jack and his team picked, promoted, and nurtured some pretty good people, but others who have superficially implemented 'his style' have not been so successful.
Articles like this are good for self-examination, and should not be used as a manifesto. Of course someone will use it as such, and will likely miss the meaning altogether, surely even resulting in yet another example of your complaint.
I disagree - it should be a manifesto - hire good people, cut out the crap, do great things. Jack's strategy is a good way to do that. What you need is the ability to judge people well and the vision to see where the company should go. That's why aping Jack won't get you Jack. Anyway, I don't see how pointing out the difficulty of implementing this strategy makes it any less effective. As with anything, you need the right people.
The right to be protected against search is already rescinded if there is probable cause you have commited a crime.
There is no such right. There is only a protection against unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires a warrant, with exceptions for exigent circumstances and the 'plain sight' doctrine.
The right to be informed of a search when there is probably cause you have commited a crime is already rescinded if the crime you may commit (terrorism) is so dangerous that tipping you off may be the worse of two evils.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. The government just doesn't think it has to follow the law any more.
Which of course raises the question - if the code was not intended to be in the game (Take-Two had to know it exceeded their target rating), what was it doing commited to the main branch in the first place?
Easter egg? Rogue developer? Shit happens.
If there truly were no connections to it - it could have safely been removed *without* retesting.
And if you could know something like that, you wouldn't need testing, now would you?
The facts of the matter don't support any other conclusions than Take-Two (which encouraged mods), knowingly left that code in place for modders to find.
So what? The ESRB should rate games as shipped, not based on what someone could do with them - HL2 can be modded into gothic horror, so should it be MA?
$100k barely gets you and your team to the games. Even so, you can place well and get more money next year. If you can't, perhaps your country has worse problems.
The fact that you do not know of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (Sonny Bonno CR Act) means you have a lack of knowledge of CR law - I suggest you read up on copyright law.
So, when I pointed to the duration as the main problem with copyright, that had nothing to do with the Disney subsidy you refer to?
See, if stores are trying to tell the film studios that they have no right to make movies with sex and violence or that they shouldn't make them at all is wrong. But to offer editted versions gives families options. To tell families that they must see the full version, complete with sex and violence, is doing the same thing, saying it's "My way or no way."
Families have no right to an editted version of Pulp Fiction. They either take it or leave it. Who are you to tell the director that he has to offer something family friendly? Go watch some disney trash.
If the studio is getting the full fees per ticket that they'd get for an uneditted, and as long as the theater playing it is not claiming to be the original producer of the film, then yes.
Well it isn't. You have to wait for copyright to expire before you do that. It's their right to edit a movie or not.
I wonder if the opposite won't happen: a group of loud social conservatives voting to protect the rights of parents to protect their children from the naughty bits.
Jet's are very inefficient compared to piston engined aircraft, it's just that they fly faster on cheaper fuel and have much lower maintenance costs which make them more "dollar efficient.")
And yet 747s are the most efficient known method for moving people from place to place. Funny how that works.
According to trainspotting, 3 days is long enough to complete withdrawal, so you would need to stagger 1 week of Heroin with one of none on an ongoing basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has sayings like "Think different", Microsoft is more goal oriented with "Where do you want to go today?"
They're both lying. Apple let's me do the things I need and mostly stays out of the way, while MS is taking the slow boat to hell. That's why I will never move past Win2k, and why I have a powerbook.
Jack and his team picked, promoted, and nurtured some pretty good people, but others who have superficially implemented 'his style' have not been so successful.
Articles like this are good for self-examination, and should not be used as a manifesto. Of course someone will use it as such, and will likely miss the meaning altogether, surely even resulting in yet another example of your complaint.
I disagree - it should be a manifesto - hire good people, cut out the crap, do great things. Jack's strategy is a good way to do that. What you need is the ability to judge people well and the vision to see where the company should go. That's why aping Jack won't get you Jack. Anyway, I don't see how pointing out the difficulty of implementing this strategy makes it any less effective. As with anything, you need the right people.
Frankly Bob, you just don't have Dave's passion."
Gee Ted, that's too bad. Can you run a project on passion? I want money Ted, that's why I come here and drive your projects. Give me more money.
Now, unless they're doing some kind of business with the government, or spying on the people - why would they require a security clearence?
To see if you can keep secrets. It's not just the government, you know.
The right to be protected against search is already rescinded if there is probable cause you have commited a crime.
There is no such right. There is only a protection against unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires a warrant, with exceptions for exigent circumstances and the 'plain sight' doctrine.
The right to be informed of a search when there is probably cause you have commited a crime is already rescinded if the crime you may commit (terrorism) is so dangerous that tipping you off may be the worse of two evils.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. The government just doesn't think it has to follow the law any more.
The thing is, if the MPAA tries to use this ruling to expand their power over copyright, they may find the religious right in opposition to them
I don't see how - a copyright holder has pretty much absolute control over how and if their works are distributed.
It exists. The porblem is extracting it - nobody's figured out how. It makes a great sci-fi power source, though - no fuel, lotsa juice.
Which of course raises the question - if the code was not intended to be in the game (Take-Two had to know it exceeded their target rating), what was it doing commited to the main branch in the first place?
Easter egg? Rogue developer? Shit happens.
If there truly were no connections to it - it could have safely been removed *without* retesting.
And if you could know something like that, you wouldn't need testing, now would you?
The facts of the matter don't support any other conclusions than Take-Two (which encouraged mods), knowingly left that code in place for modders to find.
So what? The ESRB should rate games as shipped, not based on what someone could do with them - HL2 can be modded into gothic horror, so should it be MA?
$100k barely gets you and your team to the games. Even so, you can place well and get more money next year. If you can't, perhaps your country has worse problems.
If I bought that movie, i sure as hell have that right.
You do not. You don't own copyright, just a copy of the movie.
If someone does work, they just receive just compensation.
This doesn't apply to copyright.
If the copyright holder things I am undercutting them, they can go ahead and edit it themselves selling it. Thats how markets work.
The copyright holder will simply point out that you are illegally distributing their works and have you shut down.
If someone bought the movie, they should be able to say what they do with it. Not some arbitrary company holding the copyright to that movie.
And it is thus. The only limitation is on redistribution - you can't edit a movie and resell it. You don't have that right.
They don't have the right to edit and redistribute the movie. This is independent of their intent - they can't do it.
The fact that you do not know of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (Sonny Bonno CR Act) means you have a lack of knowledge of CR law - I suggest you read up on copyright law.
So, when I pointed to the duration as the main problem with copyright, that had nothing to do with the Disney subsidy you refer to?
They are produced by the studios so, no, they won't be illegal. They also have no obligation to sell to you.
The smart thing to do is for the EFF and other orgs to make a temp alliance with the 'pro-family' groups to have copyright laws rewritten.
The only thing wrong with copyright is its duration. Consumers have no right to demand that a work be edited for content.
This is a chance to get more people involved in rolling back the increased rights granted to copyright holders these past few years.
The only real extension that I can recall is the DMCA, which, while unconscionable, is completely orthogonal to this.
See, if stores are trying to tell the film studios that they have no right to make movies with sex and violence or that they shouldn't make them at all is wrong. But to offer editted versions gives families options. To tell families that they must see the full version, complete with sex and violence, is doing the same thing, saying it's "My way or no way."
Families have no right to an editted version of Pulp Fiction. They either take it or leave it. Who are you to tell the director that he has to offer something family friendly? Go watch some disney trash.
I still don't see where the studio is losing out.
Creative control.
If the studio is getting the full fees per ticket that they'd get for an uneditted, and as long as the theater playing it is not claiming to be the original producer of the film, then yes.
Well it isn't. You have to wait for copyright to expire before you do that. It's their right to edit a movie or not.
Too late - http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/ beat you to it
I wonder if the opposite won't happen: a group of loud social conservatives voting to protect the rights of parents to protect their children from the naughty bits.
You do have that right - don't buy it.
Jet's are very inefficient compared to piston engined aircraft, it's just that they fly faster on cheaper fuel and have much lower maintenance costs which make them more "dollar efficient.")
And yet 747s are the most efficient known method for moving people from place to place. Funny how that works.
That's muthafuckin' shakes on a plane.
Actually, they can do SA on a region basis, so if they have enough GPSes in Iraq, they can turn it off there (and only there).
According to trainspotting, 3 days is long enough to complete withdrawal, so you would need to stagger 1 week of Heroin with one of none on an ongoing basis.
Has the memory of 9/11 faded that much?
When you have to trot out that bogeyman, it means your argument has no value. Back under your rock!
For the non americans out there, all those names are of known terrorists on US soil.