At first, I shared your point of view, but after some further reflection, I don't really think this is such a terrific thing after all.
First, the only reason Nintendo backed down was because it got posted to slashdot and/or made significant negative publicity. They did not back down because they were wrong. If there was no publicity, there would have been no action. Therefore, the motivation behind their action has nothing to do with the justice of the situation. They would prosecute an innocent person or let off a guilty one solely on the basis of self-preservation. Way to go indeed.
Second, publicity of the form required for this sort of resolution is scarce. That is, every injustice cannot be highlighted; every act of corporations and lawyers bullying average people cannot make big news. Therefore, when we let them off the hook for the mistakes that become publicized, we are making it very easy for them to continue what they are doing.
This is not about a single web site or a single C&D. This is about a pattern and practice of just blindly sending out legal threats to ordinary people knowing most won't stand up for their rights. So for the price of a couple of consoles, they look like good guys while continuing to send out lord knows how many more letters improperly. If they aren't made to pay long-term consequences for their pattern of behavior, there is no incentive to change.
Imagine if a company went out of business because of a coordinated boycott after a single infraction of this kind. No chance for resolution. You intimidate people, your corporation dies. How would that change the way companies do business?
Yes, I have read the books a number of times, and I think "authentic" is just fine, because it has nothing to do with the faithfulness to the books. There were a lot of things I didn't like about the choices in translating the books to film, but the movies looked really made you believe this world existed. There was a weight and depth of reality to them. Compare this to any number of TV fantasy shows which look very artificial (MAD TV's "Prehistoric Glamazon Huntress A.D." does a great job of spoofing them). I use the word authentic to describe this very quality, and I don't see any need to involve whether it followed the book at all in that description. That is a separate subject, essentially, on an independent axis. They could have been extremely faithful to the book, but with costumes, art and scenery that looked fake.
He had a remark in the article about how the design beauty extends to even the inner parts of the cube which are not seen. That reminds me of the Shakers, who would labor to make even the unseen parts of their furniture or other crafts as well-constructed as the visible ones.
Another example it makes me think of is when I was watching the documentaries on the extended LOTR discs. The level of detail they would go to for things that were only on-screen for a moment, or in the background, was incredible. They could have skimped on any one thing and it would have not been noticeable. But taken together, they give the film a feel of authenticity.
I guess the thing that runs through all of these is that quality is about what's inside as well as what's outside. Too bad most software projects don't follow that rule.
Imagine a case where a broken link is pointed to another link, which later itself becomes a broken link, and so on...it might even be possible that somehow the chain loops back on itself at some point. One thing I've realized in my career is that if you handle an error too gracefully, no one bothers to fix it. I prefer to have errors cause enough of a problem that there is feedback to fix it.
hmm...levels. Now consumers will have an objective gauge for their computer's performance. It's hard, though, when you only have, say levels 1-10. And it doesn't say much in the way of relative performance. Does a level 1 10% have as much performance as a level 10? Also, as someone pointed out, as hardware progresses, you'll need higher and higher numbers.
Maybe the solution is to have standards by which performance is measured. Someone could write software which evaluates a computer's performance and assigns a numerical value. Then consumers could use that as a guide. We could call it a "bench mark". Then people could get into all sorts of flame wars about these "bench marks", and how they are computed, and which one to use, and so on...
Bill Gates is the John D. Rockerfeller of his day. A guy who engaged in massive monopolistic practices to build the world's most immense fortune, only to give most of it away. Each took a fledgling industry (petroleum and PCs) and made them into corporate behemoths (Standard Oil and Microsoft) through shrewdness and ruthless business practices, crushing rivals with every dirty trick possible. Rockerfeller regularly hired employes from his competitors as spies to give him inside information that he would then use to destroy his competition. Both Rockerfeller and Gates were/are completely unrepentant for their deeds, and believed they had done nothing wrong but follow the best policies of good business.
John D. Rockerfeller Jr. (John D.'s son) was the guy who actually spent a great deal of the money, and the one who had a passion for it; John D. had one passion -- the Standard Oil business. It took a generation for people to forget the Rockerfeller name stood for vicious anti-competitive trusts which left human wreckage in its wake, and turn the Rockerfeller name into one that meant philanthropy. Gates is managing that within a generation, although he did not have to start out in the public relations hole John D. did. Gates, however vilified he is by the slashdot crowd, has been more a hero to the average American. America once despised its capitalist masters. Now we lionize them.
The Rockerfellers did not follow Carnegie's lead. Carnegie took a lot of criticism for his rather shameless self-promotion. Rockerfeller had a strict religious upbringing and considered giving a duty, one that was its own reward, and was not meant for glorifying oneself. You'll see Gates memorial this-or-that here and there, but for the most part, it doesn't look like Bill Gates is interested in having lots of things named after him.
History will be very forgiving to Bill Gates. People today think anti-trust legislation is some sort of government power trip to stifle progress, not a vital safeguard that restrained some of the most brutal machinery of captialism ever unleashed. Rockerfeller was shunned and vilified by the presidents and other politicians of his day, and now he's considered a great benefactor to mankind. How much more is Gates going to be remembered as the great success story who gave his money for the good of others? Any blemishes on his character will be easily waved away as jealous competitors, not anyone with a serious grief.
Another interesting note: the guy that John D. first hired to be his chief for philanthropy was named Frederick Gates.
For reference, see John Jacob Jingle Heimer Schmidt Jr. vs. Wichita Falls Troop 147, 1981. Mr. Schmidt testified that, "Troop 147 blatantly and egregiously harmed the value of my father's name with an off-key rendition of his self-titled song. And his name is my name too."
let ourselves get whipped up into making stupid decisions by political opportunists exploiting said idiots.
Let's not forget the profiteers. That's probably why we are seeing such slapdash work on these machines in the first place. After 2000, the Diebolds of the world probably knew that they had to produce a electronic voting machine and secure their contracts immediately or risk getting left behind...meaning, if you took the time to do it correctly, you would be too late.
Any time you see some kind of crisis (2000 election, 9/11, Iraq War), all the profiteers come out ready to milk the situation for favorable contracts and sell the government and public some sort of expensive snake oil.
It's the product of a political process that punishes politicians for thinking before they act. Your opponent can make political hay out of your inaction, even if it is out of due diligence -- hence an unread PATRIOT Act gets passed by a room full of Congressmen afraid of looking like they aren't for strong, decisive measures in the War On Terror(TM).
In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
He was referring to what he saw was the lack of need for a bill of rights -- since Congress only had the power outlined in the Constitution.
And Georgia was one of the leading opponents of the bill of rights. They argued that if we list them out, some idiot in the future will think that our rights are limited to just those. The counter-argument to that was, look, we've made this constitution so pure and perfect that it is a machine incapable of producing tyranny, so there's no need. The reality is that we don't even have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, never mind the other natural rights that were never explicitly listed because no one thought we'd ever have a government so corrupt as to trample them.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm most used to seeing the second definition in actual use. I was wondering how and why they wanted to forbid open-source...
Better talking does not equate smarter! I'm deeply injured by that insidiation. On behalve of every one like me, I would like to make known: Plees have regard for speeking-impared peoples. And also riting-impared. This is an outage!
Don't worry, Mr. President, we've replaced you with a iMac in a flight suit running a bombing program in an infinite loop. I don't think anyone will notice the difference.
The Berne Convention is the most significant international treaty governing copyright, and it includes a provision prohibiting member states from imposing copyright formalities on the works of authors from other member states.
One way would be to re-impose formalities for all works of U.S. authors -- these are most works published in the U.S., and Berne doesn't prohibit signatory nations from imposing formalities on their own authors.
Happiness is not something that external conditions can produce. Happiness is an internal quality -- it comes from within you. For example, I am pretty much miserable most of the time. Why? Is it my job? No, my job is very good, and I have no reason to be unhappy. I would be just as unhappy as I am now if I was CEO, movie star, pro athlete, surrounded by beautiful women, fabulously rich, etc. And if I were a happy person (as an internal quality) I could be happy as a busboy or poopsmith.
This whole oil idea is so stupid I'm surprised people still bring it up
Actually, oil is a strategic natural resource. Iraq is not of interest because Bush or anyone else wants cheap oil. They want control of a strategic resource. Oil represents power, because it represents money and is so critical to the operation of the worlds machinery (literally and figuratively). Being able to control the flow of oil around the world gives the US a great deal of power.
The US barely noticed the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. In fact the government took great pains to label it "ethnic cleansing" (and make sure the media did as well) because to call it genocide would invoke treaties which require military intervention to stop genocide. This is just a glaring example of how "strategic interest" governs US policy, not any ethical or moral principles. If it's good for business, if it's good for getting the upper hand over enemies and allies, it's worth the effort.
Human rights is not the reason for invading Iraq, or any of the U.S. involvement in previous years. But to say, "it's about cheap oil" misses the mark a bit. It's about control of oil. If Iraq had nothing but more sand under the sand, Saddam would still be in power. The US has a long and continuing history of upsetting democratic governments and installing despots, supporting vicious human-rights violators, and looking the other way when it comes to people who play ball (Saudi Arabia).
Power and money are the language of America, indeed most of the world. These are what wars are fought over, why people seek office, how the very gears of the global ecomomy works. And the purpose of globalization is to get everybody involved in it who isn't yet. We have created a global system that runs on money and power. To think that this system has any other aim but to continue its own existence and increase the wealth and power of those who run it is illogical.
Encyclopedias are to research what McDonald's is to food -- fast, cheap, and not that good for you. A lot of information in encyclopedias is inaccurate, biased, or incomplete. Much like the internet. If you are looking for casual information, to, say, settle a bar bet, the internet works just fine. If you are trying to do serious research, you're going to go to the library or use a (for-pay) online research service.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh a garage? Well, la-dee-da, Mr. French person. I call mine an x-hole.
First, the only reason Nintendo backed down was because it got posted to slashdot and/or made significant negative publicity. They did not back down because they were wrong. If there was no publicity, there would have been no action. Therefore, the motivation behind their action has nothing to do with the justice of the situation. They would prosecute an innocent person or let off a guilty one solely on the basis of self-preservation. Way to go indeed.
Second, publicity of the form required for this sort of resolution is scarce. That is, every injustice cannot be highlighted; every act of corporations and lawyers bullying average people cannot make big news. Therefore, when we let them off the hook for the mistakes that become publicized, we are making it very easy for them to continue what they are doing.
This is not about a single web site or a single C&D. This is about a pattern and practice of just blindly sending out legal threats to ordinary people knowing most won't stand up for their rights. So for the price of a couple of consoles, they look like good guys while continuing to send out lord knows how many more letters improperly. If they aren't made to pay long-term consequences for their pattern of behavior, there is no incentive to change.
Imagine if a company went out of business because of a coordinated boycott after a single infraction of this kind. No chance for resolution. You intimidate people, your corporation dies. How would that change the way companies do business?
I believe the official term is "America Junior" (credit to H.S.)
Evidence #1: Federal court issues a very common-sense interpretation the badly-abused DMCA and limits this abuse.
Evidence #2: The Red Sox are about to win a World Series.
Yes, I have read the books a number of times, and I think "authentic" is just fine, because it has nothing to do with the faithfulness to the books. There were a lot of things I didn't like about the choices in translating the books to film, but the movies looked really made you believe this world existed. There was a weight and depth of reality to them. Compare this to any number of TV fantasy shows which look very artificial (MAD TV's "Prehistoric Glamazon Huntress A.D." does a great job of spoofing them). I use the word authentic to describe this very quality, and I don't see any need to involve whether it followed the book at all in that description. That is a separate subject, essentially, on an independent axis. They could have been extremely faithful to the book, but with costumes, art and scenery that looked fake.
Another example it makes me think of is when I was watching the documentaries on the extended LOTR discs. The level of detail they would go to for things that were only on-screen for a moment, or in the background, was incredible. They could have skimped on any one thing and it would have not been noticeable. But taken together, they give the film a feel of authenticity.
I guess the thing that runs through all of these is that quality is about what's inside as well as what's outside. Too bad most software projects don't follow that rule.
The Gecko God of Mozilla and Open Source is a jerk. A complete kneebiter. Thanks for your time. Now I'm off to see Gentoo. Later.
Imagine a case where a broken link is pointed to another link, which later itself becomes a broken link, and so on...it might even be possible that somehow the chain loops back on itself at some point. One thing I've realized in my career is that if you handle an error too gracefully, no one bothers to fix it. I prefer to have errors cause enough of a problem that there is feedback to fix it.
Maybe the solution is to have standards by which performance is measured. Someone could write software which evaluates a computer's performance and assigns a numerical value. Then consumers could use that as a guide. We could call it a "bench mark". Then people could get into all sorts of flame wars about these "bench marks", and how they are computed, and which one to use, and so on...
John D. Rockerfeller Jr. (John D.'s son) was the guy who actually spent a great deal of the money, and the one who had a passion for it; John D. had one passion -- the Standard Oil business. It took a generation for people to forget the Rockerfeller name stood for vicious anti-competitive trusts which left human wreckage in its wake, and turn the Rockerfeller name into one that meant philanthropy. Gates is managing that within a generation, although he did not have to start out in the public relations hole John D. did. Gates, however vilified he is by the slashdot crowd, has been more a hero to the average American. America once despised its capitalist masters. Now we lionize them.
The Rockerfellers did not follow Carnegie's lead. Carnegie took a lot of criticism for his rather shameless self-promotion. Rockerfeller had a strict religious upbringing and considered giving a duty, one that was its own reward, and was not meant for glorifying oneself. You'll see Gates memorial this-or-that here and there, but for the most part, it doesn't look like Bill Gates is interested in having lots of things named after him.
History will be very forgiving to Bill Gates. People today think anti-trust legislation is some sort of government power trip to stifle progress, not a vital safeguard that restrained some of the most brutal machinery of captialism ever unleashed. Rockerfeller was shunned and vilified by the presidents and other politicians of his day, and now he's considered a great benefactor to mankind. How much more is Gates going to be remembered as the great success story who gave his money for the good of others? Any blemishes on his character will be easily waved away as jealous competitors, not anyone with a serious grief.
Another interesting note: the guy that John D. first hired to be his chief for philanthropy was named Frederick Gates.
If the contract is not legal, it can't be enforced. So what are the terms of the contract, and are they legal?
For reference, see John Jacob Jingle Heimer Schmidt Jr. vs. Wichita Falls Troop 147, 1981. Mr. Schmidt testified that, "Troop 147 blatantly and egregiously harmed the value of my father's name with an off-key rendition of his self-titled song. And his name is my name too."
It was all that DVD copying that finally broke them! At least that's what Jack Valenti told me.
Let's not forget the profiteers. That's probably why we are seeing such slapdash work on these machines in the first place. After 2000, the Diebolds of the world probably knew that they had to produce a electronic voting machine and secure their contracts immediately or risk getting left behind...meaning, if you took the time to do it correctly, you would be too late.
Any time you see some kind of crisis (2000 election, 9/11, Iraq War), all the profiteers come out ready to milk the situation for favorable contracts and sell the government and public some sort of expensive snake oil.
It's the product of a political process that punishes politicians for thinking before they act. Your opponent can make political hay out of your inaction, even if it is out of due diligence -- hence an unread PATRIOT Act gets passed by a room full of Congressmen afraid of looking like they aren't for strong, decisive measures in the War On Terror(TM).
He was referring to what he saw was the lack of need for a bill of rights -- since Congress only had the power outlined in the Constitution.
And Georgia was one of the leading opponents of the bill of rights. They argued that if we list them out, some idiot in the future will think that our rights are limited to just those. The counter-argument to that was, look, we've made this constitution so pure and perfect that it is a machine incapable of producing tyranny, so there's no need. The reality is that we don't even have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, never mind the other natural rights that were never explicitly listed because no one thought we'd ever have a government so corrupt as to trample them.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm most used to seeing the second definition in actual use. I was wondering how and why they wanted to forbid open-source...
Don't worry, Mr. President, we've replaced you with a iMac in a flight suit running a bombing program in an infinite loop. I don't think anyone will notice the difference.
We're talking about politics, right?
Perhaps we should just try to spend the money on getting homes for the homeless?
then, they laugh at you
then, they fight you <-- you are here
then you win
Will step 4 happen? Stay tuned.
The Berne Convention is the most significant international treaty governing copyright, and it includes a provision prohibiting member states from imposing copyright formalities on the works of authors from other member states.
One way would be to re-impose formalities for all works of U.S. authors -- these are most works published in the U.S., and Berne doesn't prohibit signatory nations from imposing formalities on their own authors.
Happiness is not something that external conditions can produce. Happiness is an internal quality -- it comes from within you. For example, I am pretty much miserable most of the time. Why? Is it my job? No, my job is very good, and I have no reason to be unhappy. I would be just as unhappy as I am now if I was CEO, movie star, pro athlete, surrounded by beautiful women, fabulously rich, etc. And if I were a happy person (as an internal quality) I could be happy as a busboy or poopsmith.
To adapt a Winston Churchill quote, America is the worst superpower ever, except for all the others.
Actually, oil is a strategic natural resource. Iraq is not of interest because Bush or anyone else wants cheap oil. They want control of a strategic resource. Oil represents power, because it represents money and is so critical to the operation of the worlds machinery (literally and figuratively). Being able to control the flow of oil around the world gives the US a great deal of power.
The US barely noticed the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans in 1994. In fact the government took great pains to label it "ethnic cleansing" (and make sure the media did as well) because to call it genocide would invoke treaties which require military intervention to stop genocide. This is just a glaring example of how "strategic interest" governs US policy, not any ethical or moral principles. If it's good for business, if it's good for getting the upper hand over enemies and allies, it's worth the effort.
Human rights is not the reason for invading Iraq, or any of the U.S. involvement in previous years. But to say, "it's about cheap oil" misses the mark a bit. It's about control of oil. If Iraq had nothing but more sand under the sand, Saddam would still be in power. The US has a long and continuing history of upsetting democratic governments and installing despots, supporting vicious human-rights violators, and looking the other way when it comes to people who play ball (Saudi Arabia).
Power and money are the language of America, indeed most of the world. These are what wars are fought over, why people seek office, how the very gears of the global ecomomy works. And the purpose of globalization is to get everybody involved in it who isn't yet. We have created a global system that runs on money and power. To think that this system has any other aim but to continue its own existence and increase the wealth and power of those who run it is illogical.
Encyclopedias are to research what McDonald's is to food -- fast, cheap, and not that good for you. A lot of information in encyclopedias is inaccurate, biased, or incomplete. Much like the internet. If you are looking for casual information, to, say, settle a bar bet, the internet works just fine. If you are trying to do serious research, you're going to go to the library or use a (for-pay) online research service.