So your basic argument against this is: Disney's only goal is to make money while Lockheed's goals are to further the advancement of man AND make money?
I'll let it drop before this becomes a flame war. I don't agree with Disney, I think they aren't heading in the right direction. My point was only to show that Lockheed Martin's main interests are lining the pockets of their investors.
The bid ot build the space shuttle for the government was open, Lockheed was lucky enough to win it. It could have easily been Boeing who made the shuttle.
The shuttle was paid for by the USA, not out of the kindness of Lockheed Martin's heart.
Unlike Disney, Lockheed-Martin actually does employ quite a few very smart engineers.
So Disney's "D" stands for Dumb? I'm sorry, but the "imagineers" are pretty smart as well. If disney were a company made up of complete idiots, they wouldn't have made it so Intellectual Property rights didn't expire, ever.
Contrary to the majority of slashdot opinion, Disney does employ smart people. They also play hardball, use underhanded tactics, and know how to do both of those very well.
Just because they constantly use underhanded tactics to further their own interests does not make them dumb.
I'm suprised no one noticed the new strategy being implemented.
Nothing was called "Open Source" on the webpage for Linux. It's all called "freely shared", as in illegal music files.
It might be my paranoid side talking, but that was the scariest part of the article, not trying to lock out Linux, but making it sound like "freely shared" is a BAD thing (It's illegal to "freely share" MS Office, or Windows, or MP3's).
It makes me cringe worse to think of it coming out like the 3-d version of Contra that came out for the PSX (Not the 3-d rendered side-scroller). That was one of the worst games ever made.
As much as a kudos from Slashdot is worth, this company will only make it if you buy their product. If you have this game for windows, or don't want this game but another, the only way it will get published by LGP is if they stay in business. They only way that will happen is if their products are purchased, so buy the game to support Linux companies to get more games on Linux.
I might a bit confused, so bear with me (correct me if I'm wrong).
The comic used an "innocent" strawberry shortcake to parody McGee's work. The people who own the rights to Strawberry Shortcake got upset and ask them to remove the infringing material from their website. Since the parody was not about Strawberry Shortcake, but rather using them as a tool to parody something else, it is not a protected parody.
If that is right, and it's not the people who own the rights to McGee's work, but the owners of Strawberry Shortcake, I agree that the comic was infringing upon their rights. If the comic was parodying Strawberry Shortcake in any way it should be protected.
Usually the Grad students try to get direction only to find the professor to busy to help. They eventually go with their best judgement. Also, since there are usually several grad students working on one book (Each pulls different chapters/sections to do, get things done faster), communication in the group is key to getting it done properly.
The disappearing sentence is a good example of that. A translated page takes up more space than the untranslated version, so Student1 needs to talk to Student2 to merge the pages seemlessly. Student2 is on vacation in Milan with his girlfriend until the night before the deadline because he did all his work early. So Student1 decides the last half of the sentence wasn't that important anyway.
The problem lies in proofreading. No one ever wants to proofread boring technical manuals. When was the last time you pulled another co-worker hand-made tech manual on a piece of code to proofread it just-in-case?
This is the equivalent of taking a novel by, say, Charles Dickens, editing it and perhaps adding another chapter, changing the title and claiming it as a new novel written by yourself.
I would say it's more like taking Charles Dickens, rewriting the most common of introductions, then reselling it for a fraction of the cost of a new copy.
Something that Barnes&Nobles does all the time with classic novels.
We truly have reached a point in the history of human communications where once something is written down or typed in, it's nearly impossible for anyone - even its author - to "unpublish" it. Once the cat's out of the bag, there's no putting it back. The internet makes permanence of speech a guarantee, so long as there are people interested in that speech. DeCSS is perhaps the best example, but there are thousands more.
*cough*Bulls*cough*hit!
Read The Master and Margurita. Manuscripts don't burn. It's been that way since the printing press, and will be that way for a long time after.
Slashdot Mirror
So your basic argument against this is: Disney's only goal is to make money while Lockheed's goals are to further the advancement of man AND make money?
I'll let it drop before this becomes a flame war. I don't agree with Disney, I think they aren't heading in the right direction. My point was only to show that Lockheed Martin's main interests are lining the pockets of their investors.
The bid ot build the space shuttle for the government was open, Lockheed was lucky enough to win it. It could have easily been Boeing who made the shuttle.
The shuttle was paid for by the USA, not out of the kindness of Lockheed Martin's heart.
Unlike Disney, Lockheed-Martin actually does employ quite a few very smart engineers.
So Disney's "D" stands for Dumb? I'm sorry, but the "imagineers" are pretty smart as well. If disney were a company made up of complete idiots, they wouldn't have made it so Intellectual Property rights didn't expire, ever.
Contrary to the majority of slashdot opinion, Disney does employ smart people. They also play hardball, use underhanded tactics, and know how to do both of those very well.
Just because they constantly use underhanded tactics to further their own interests does not make them dumb.
A hearty thank you from Kansas.
When I woke up this morning all I thought I had to fear was another round of tornados's coming through.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find clean pants.
!paos eht pord t'noD
C EVIL BOT CAN LYE
"This frag tastes like E-mail"
I'm suprised no one noticed the new strategy being implemented.
Nothing was called "Open Source" on the webpage for Linux. It's all called "freely shared", as in illegal music files.
It might be my paranoid side talking, but that was the scariest part of the article, not trying to lock out Linux, but making it sound like "freely shared" is a BAD thing (It's illegal to "freely share" MS Office, or Windows, or MP3's).
My first child has just been renamed to Dion.
It makes me cringe worse to think of it coming out like the 3-d version of Contra that came out for the PSX (Not the 3-d rendered side-scroller). That was one of the worst games ever made.
April Fools day is the FIRST day of the month.
This article is NOT even funny for an April 1st prank.
Just be glad they didn't talk about "Coming to work in one this morning".
BTW, this is a repost, they had these up with Zip-Zaps way back in december.
I never see "kudo's to the developers on creating great Windows programs"...
12 4 $0.10
As much as a kudos from Slashdot is worth, this company will only make it if you buy their product. If you have this game for windows, or don't want this game but another, the only way it will get published by LGP is if they stay in business. They only way that will happen is if their products are purchased, so buy the game to support Linux companies to get more games on Linux.
Video Game?
I was planning on replying to this, but I just saw someone drive away in my car. They changed the plates, though.
Hopefully they will repark it and replace the plates before the police arrive, again (seventh time this week).
So how do they make new Americans then?
Why do you think we are a nation of Immigrants?
This is unfair in all respects.
I might a bit confused, so bear with me (correct me if I'm wrong).
The comic used an "innocent" strawberry shortcake to parody McGee's work. The people who own the rights to Strawberry Shortcake got upset and ask them to remove the infringing material from their website. Since the parody was not about Strawberry Shortcake, but rather using them as a tool to parody something else, it is not a protected parody.
If that is right, and it's not the people who own the rights to McGee's work, but the owners of Strawberry Shortcake, I agree that the comic was infringing upon their rights. If the comic was parodying Strawberry Shortcake in any way it should be protected.
But I might be wrong.
Anyone who has been subject to the saccharine sweetness that is Strawberry Shortcake would support any amount of mockery.
That smell alone deserves mocking. It could choke a man to death.
Am I the only person that finds irony in the last name "Mulligan" for an author of game design books?
That conversation will never happen. You'll already be in prison for infringing on the copyrights of those (soon-to-be) trademarked "3D-VR Relay".
That's what I get for not using the preview button >:(
That conversation will never happen. You'll already be in prison for of those (soon-to-be) trademarked "3D-VR Relay".
Usually the Grad students try to get direction only to find the professor to busy to help. They eventually go with their best judgement. Also, since there are usually several grad students working on one book (Each pulls different chapters/sections to do, get things done faster), communication in the group is key to getting it done properly.
The disappearing sentence is a good example of that. A translated page takes up more space than the untranslated version, so Student1 needs to talk to Student2 to merge the pages seemlessly. Student2 is on vacation in Milan with his girlfriend until the night before the deadline because he did all his work early. So Student1 decides the last half of the sentence wasn't that important anyway.
The problem lies in proofreading. No one ever wants to proofread boring technical manuals. When was the last time you pulled another co-worker hand-made tech manual on a piece of code to proofread it just-in-case?
This is the equivalent of taking a novel by, say, Charles Dickens, editing it and perhaps adding another chapter, changing the title and claiming it as a new novel written by yourself.
I would say it's more like taking Charles Dickens, rewriting the most common of introductions, then reselling it for a fraction of the cost of a new copy.
Something that Barnes&Nobles does all the time with classic novels.
We truly have reached a point in the history of human communications where once something is written down or typed in, it's nearly impossible for anyone - even its author - to "unpublish" it. Once the cat's out of the bag, there's no putting it back. The internet makes permanence of speech a guarantee, so long as there are people interested in that speech. DeCSS is perhaps the best example, but there are thousands more.
*cough*Bulls*cough*hit!
Read The Master and Margurita. Manuscripts don't burn. It's been that way since the printing press, and will be that way for a long time after.