How many NES or SNES games did you have? My brothers and I had a couple dozen on each system. That's not too tough to recreate with Nintendo's current pricing.
About 50 NES games and about a dozen SNES. I still have most of them and my SNES and NES still work. I can count on both hands the games that I ever actually play anymore from those systems. Assume that I want the convenience of having them on my main game console rather than having to screw around blowing in the NES. That still puts me, a pretty hard-core gamer with a lot of Big N history and nostalgia, at buying maybe half a dozen Virtual Console games.
Just think, for the price of an XBox 360 game you can get 12 NES games, 7 SNES games, or 6 N64 games. That seems pretty good to me.
But people with access to the Virtual Console will be buying Wii games, so the purchasing decision would be between a Wii game or 10 NES games. If I didn't know that certain NES games were and still are awesome, I would almost certainly go with the modern game. I wouldn't pay $5 for a random NES title I'd never heard of, no way. I'm not convinced the "casual" gamers would either, given that NES games will look primitive compared to the Flash or even cell phone games they've probably poked at.
Still the opportunity cost for N seems a little low. If they don't flood the VC with all the piles of crap ever produced for Nintendo systems (no Deadly Towers, no Superman 64), then maybe they can make the risk for the consumer low enough that they'll feel $5 is worth it.
The article says that their numbers come from Symantec's security threat report, but where does Symantec get their numbers from? Obviously to count a vulnerability, they have to know about it. Are they only counting ones they have verified, any that have been publicly announced, do they do their own research? Are we counting all the vulnerabilities that appear in bugzilla? Are we not counting the vulnerabilities that MS knows about but hasn't made public?
I can't really say, but to me it looks like exactly what I would expect from an open source system: More publicly known bugs (not necessarily more or less actual bugs), and a faster turnaround time on bugs.
The Virtual Console obviously wasn't made with you in mind, then. There are -tons- of games that I wouldn't pay the $5-$10 for, but there are those few that I will. And that's all that matters.
I certainly see where you're coming from, and I too will probably buy a few select games (though most of these games I have for my still-functional NES and SNES, may not be getting those either).
The thing is, for the "casual" gamer who may not have a long history with SNES and NES and who won't have a desperate urge to replay all the games they used to, $5 seems like a lot. It's hard to imagine someone browsing through these games and paying that much for an old NES game that they have no nostalgic memories of based on an 8-bit screenshot.
It just seems like the natural market for virtual console games is small, and to make it larger they're going to have to make it affordable to buy a few and try them.
Being conservative and classical in their business management gives them the financial stability to be progressive and innovative in their console design. That's just how I see it.
That's a much better idea than what I do, which is to create the need for a real 911 call.
"911 dispatcher? Hello? Yes, my address is 555 NotMyAddress, New York, MT. Is that what you have? It is? Great! That's what I wanted to know. Oh, the emergency? Of course there's an emergency, I wouldn't place a fake 911 call, ha ha! Yeah, I just stabbed a guy in the neck with a letter opener. on my front porch. That's right, some random guy, with a letter opener. Maybe he's a solicitor or something, is that important? He's bleeding pretty good, that ambulence should hurry. What was that -- why? Because I needed to make a 911 call and verify the address lookup of course!"
Words are based on letters. So should trademarks exist then? Or would you then say, "a trademark is not a patent"? Just wondering.. what I mean to say is how does your analogy hold in relation to language? (you have a good point IMO)
Software is based on letters (and other characters), but it represents math. Just like the letters you just read represent the concept "Software is characters, but represents math".
So it's pretty much the same thing with regards to language. The specific form of the language, the sequence of words and letters and punctuation, is the representation, and that representation can be copyrighted. However the concept embodied in those words and letters cannot, in general, be patented or otherwise protected.
Trademark is completely different than a patent, btw. "McDonald's" isn't an invention, it's a brand name, and the motivations for protecting it are very different. Notice how the McDonald's concept isn't protected at all.
Everything in the universe can be reduced to simpler elements that by themselves seem to defy property labels.
Except you don't have to reduce software to simpler elements to call it math.
Software is math, in the same way that "3 * y^2 + (7 / 6)x = z" is math.
Now you may argue that "3 * y^2 + (7 / 6)x" is actually a series of characters that represent math, but again, that's exactly the same as software. Software is a machine-readable representation of a series of mathematical statements, while the equation I wrote is a human-readable representation of mathematical statements. Actually, some programs would be able to parse the equation, as well.
Representations of mathematical concepts, aka software, can be covered by copyright, just like a book about math can be copyrighted. The concept represented, the math that the software is intended to convey, would not be patentable if it appeared in a book, but when it appears in source code, suddenly it is.
If you don't believe software is math, you just don't understand software.
To compute the result, you must press a few hundred thousand calculator buttons, all of them correctly and in the right order. Would having a calculator where instead you could push just a single button to give you the answer reliably have any value to you?
Your argument is effectively saying that it wouldn't. After all, it's just maths, right? Anyone can do it and we know it all already, so there's no no need to incentivise new research.
What? You think I'm arguing that neither math nor its reliable and speedy computation are valuable? Where did you get that?
What I'm saying is that codifying mathematics into a computer program does not change the fact that it is mathematics.
In your example there, you already have the algorithm (i.e. the math), and you want to execute it quickly and reliably at the push of a button, instead of entering it in each time. Of course that has value, but that additional value beyond the math itself is 1) the specification of the math in a computer-readable form and 2) the computer to run the specification.
The first is protected by copyright, the second by patents. The math itself, which is what patenting the part of software that isn't the specific fixed representation involves, is unpatentable, and for good reason.
No need to incentivize new research? The incentive is the usefulness of the mathematics, same as it has always been. Was there no mathematics research before the creation of software patents? What about after? That's rhetorical, of course.
By the way, as another poster pointed out, your choice of Newton as an example is rather ironic. Try reading a little of the history of Newton and Leibniz, particularly the extensive delay in Newton publishing his work on calculus, the allegations of plagiarism, and the divide in the mathematical community that resulted.
I knew about the fight, but not about the 30 year delay. Learn something new every day. I just hope you realize that if the early practitioners of computer science in the 50s and 60s had locked away their creations for 30 years, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Math builds upon math. Science builds upon math. Engineering builds upon math. Math is the fundamental language of technological progress, and locking math up in patents is to lock up the foundation of progress.
Why should I spend time inventing new algorithms, then?
The same reason you spend time writing software at all (that others with more resources may duplicate and undercut): The new algorithm solves a particular need of yours. It is useful.
This is why Sir Charles Hoare created the quicksort in 1960. It probably didn't even occur to him that this was something he should prevent others from using, and he still found it useful to invent. Thank God he did not -- could not -- patent it, or it would have been over a decade before people could have taken free advantage of the fastest-average-time general sorting algorithm known today. Imagine everyone else had been doing the same thing -- locking up merge sort, bin sort, r/b binary trees, avl binary trees, b-trees, etc etc. With all these foundations of computer science locked up in patents for 14-20 years, how much progress do you think the software world would have made compared to what it did with free access to all these ideas? Remember, we're talking about a fourth of the entire existence of computers.
Why does software not being a physical object make it less suitable to be patented?
Because software is math.
That's all it is. A program is just a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. Now the computer is an invention. But the software is just a calculation. Patenting a software algorithm is like patenting a sequence of button pushes on your calculator, and by "like" I mean "is very literally the same".
Imagine if Sir Issac Newton had decided to lock away his Calculus? He might have had some legal troubles from Leibniz, but once they came to an amicable arangement, everyone else would have been out of luck. Is Calculus not a great invention? Of course! But like all math, it is an invention whose benefit comes from what could be built upon it. Thank goodness that Newton published his book and did not restrict others from using what it described, or you have to wonder where we'd be today.
Why shouldn't software be patentable? Because it's a patent on math, the fundamental language of the universe.
Well said, and I agree with you 100%. The only real racism I see is people declaring other people racists.
Then your life is sheltered from real racism.
Sorry, I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but if you don't see racism it's because you're just not around it then. I regret to have to inform you that racism is still alive and well.
I'm amazed at the major changes they have to make to make the game work (the entire world gets flipped) but the biggest problems comes up simply "what about those who are left handed."
Actually that isn't much work, or at least doesn't have to be. Just add in a y-axis flip into your view transformation matrix and viola, the world is now a mirror-image. All that'd be left then is to make sure the rendering of mini- or full-screen maps are correct.
As far as "what about those who are left handed", I don't know. It seems odd to me that they would consider the handed-ness of people using the Wii to control the sword, but not make it an option. The blurb (RTFA? What's that mean?) suggests that the actual design of the gameplay depends on handed-ness, which is why to make Link right-handed they had to flip everything else as well. That doesn't make much sense to me.
It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.
No, government regulation has been sufficient to guarantee that the net is neutral. Now that that regulation no longer applies, I'm extremely eager to hear your theory of what market forces would discourage the telcos from discriminating based on packet source/destination. They have a ton of money to gain from extorting Google and other services.
Reviews vary since they are subjective by definition but usually looking at a number of reviews (even if you just look at their scores on an aggregator site) should give you a pretty good idea whether the game falls into the great, good or noise brackets.
Well that's my point -- the existence of a 1-10 rating scale, with decimal points, implies that one should be able to get better resolution than great, good, or crap. However it is the games in the "good" bracket whose scores seem to be random numbers between 8 and 10, and thus the fundamental question one would like to use a rating for -- "is game A a better game than game B" -- cannot be answered by review ratings. Not just because each person's "better" is different, but because the reviewer's own sense of "better" as expressed in the text of the reviews is not accurately reflected in the score itself. Which is unsurprising, because even sticking strictly to one human, they are not going to be able to come up with a way to map their own subjective feelings of "goodness" onto a 1-10 integer scale with any accuracy, much less one that allows half-point scores or, god forbid, tenth of a point.
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that all 30+ million Californians think and act alike.
You're right, that wasn't fair. Living in Texas, I'm familiar with the concept of being environmentally conscious while surrounded by people who aren't. Convincing them to stop driving their status symbols is tough.
I think it will take 3 things, in increasing order of important: 1) Education about the environmental impact of SUVs. 2) Education about the real safety of SUVs for the soccer mom crowd. 3) Economic motivation, whether that's making gas expensive or subsidizing efficient cars.
The problem is that none of these will affect those that drive them as status symbols.
Nonetheless, I have a hard time faulting California for attempting to enforce the law.
I don't have nearly enough background to know whether it's an effective attempt, but TFA sure makes it sound shakey. A court ruling about damages from global warming? That would be quite a thing. Like I said, I believe it's true, but it's like we're talking about suing the tobacco industry and it's 1970. The truth is really known, but it isn't solid enough to threaten a judgement, and thus force a settlement. I can't say for sure, but it sounds like something that's going to lose.
I am not, however, opposed to letting people decide for themselves what to do with their lives/communities/government. If we were to call that democracy, I would be all for bringing that to the Middle East, though I'm patently opposed to the idea of using force to do so (at least I'm opposed to using American/foreign forces to do so).
Well the fact is that you can't use force to bring it, at least as an external power coming into a situation from the outside. Especially the U.S., given our history there. However force will almost certainly be part of the solution. Really, the thing to do would have been to support an Iraqi insurgency against Saddam Hussein after Gulf War I, like we said we were going to. Imagine what is happening to us today with separate Iranian and al Qaeda supported insurgencies attacking us, vs a U.S.-backed insurgency against Hussein. It would have been tougher, because Hussein had a very good intelligence network in the country, but it would have been an effort of the Iraqis. Like France supported the American revolution without dictating the outcome.
Sadly that's impossible now. I can't see any course of action that has a good outcome. But like I said, that's because we imagined that enforcing democracy was the same as creating one, but it's not.
You're describing me exactly. I knew I was going to buy Nintendo's next console before we had heard the name "Revolution" because I knew two things: 1) It would be cheap, probably cheaper than the other consoles. 2) It would have Zelda, Mario, and Metroid.
This is why I knew I was going to buy a Gamecube instead of a PS2 (which was reasonably priced, but no Zelda) and Xbox (out on both counts).
I wasn't really excited about the GC, though. I'm kinda excited about the Wii. I really hope the controller comes through. That could make the Wii much more than just "the console with Zelda".
If that law is currently unenforceable due to legal challenges, how are you going to get damages for violating it? If it is enforceable, prosecute them for violating it. It seems to me they're trying to run around their legal problems by creating a new one -- the need to prove causation of global warming in court.
Now this is off-topic, but bringing democracy to the middle east is a great idea, so long as you are able to distinguish between "bring democracy to" and "force democracy upon". At this moment in the prevailing ideology they are the same, so I could see why you'd think it was dumb based on that connection.
which is what the study concludes, and what should be pretty obvious if you read lots of game reviews. Game ratings are basically random numbers between 8 and 10, and where it falls in that range seems to be largely divorced from the content of the review. How many times have you read a review that said something like "the gameplay was fun for the first few levels, but quickly became monotonous and boring" but gave the game a 9.5, or one that said "despite a few minor flaws, this game is all around a lot of fun" and gave it an 8? When I'm out looking for a game, I think I'm going to weigh "monotonous gameplay" a lot more than "Overall Score: 9, Excellent!".
I can understand them using the game rating, as it's the only obvious number you can apply to a game review and do correlations with. However just having a number doesn't mean it actually represents something, and I'm not surprised that game sales don't correlate well with a number that is basically pulled from the reviewer's ass.
All this is well and good, of course, if it weren't for the following: "In a series of recent cases, California's regulations have been challenged in court, not just by the auto industry, but by the federal government." So yes, CA needs to sue (technically, countersue, but who's counting?). The federal government has consistently hampered CA's attempts to clean up the air. Something needs to be done.
And this is something, therefore it needs to be done. Yeah, I'm familiar with that line of non-logic.
The objective may be to enforce the existing law. If the lawsuit itself is, as the article states, about suing for damages over global warming, then it is a foolish way to accomplish the objective. Whether it's bringing democracy to the middle east or reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the need to do something will never justify doing something dumb.
But of course, you're the phal^H^H^H^H environmentalist, so you probably knew all this already.
Some environmentalist you are. I've been complaining for years about the tricks the auto companies are pulling to avoid meeting the aggressive emissions and fuel mileage standards the state has been setting. Now, the state finally decides to get tough about it, and all you have are dick jokes. Nice.
Lol, dude, I've seen the tricks auto companies pull with regards to emissions standards when they came to the EPA emissions testing facility to negotiate over new standards while I worked there.
And I did RTFA, and as far as the article states the lawsuit does not regard violations of existing standards, i.e. breaches of the law. Only "damages for past and ongoing contributions to global warming". So I repeat: This is retarded.
Yeah, I'm "some" environmentalist. Like "some" environmentalists, I don't believe in doing utterly retarded things just because they are ostensibly about protecting the environment. If the auto makers are blocking enforcement of laws legally, address thos legal issues. If the automakers are actually violating the law, prosecute them for that. Sue for damages over causing global warming? That's a really stupid way to "get tough". Maybe you'll agree when they lose.
While we are talking lawsuit, what's the logical argument/premise going to be for filing the suit? If we hold the automobile manufacturers responsible then what of the users of their products? Are you going to say that the drivers of such automobiles are "addicted", so by their logic are immune to prosecution?
Disclaimer: I'm a environmentalist and believe in anthropogenic global warming. I think this is retarded.
You're absolutely right, it's not like anyone is physically addicted to the Chevy Suburban. Maybe they can't mentally shake the cultural effect that says they have to have a big shiny phal^H^H^H^H car to prove their status in society, but that sounds like their problem. If Californians think SUVs are harmful, then stop buying them you superficial idiots!
I'm not getting the basis for the suit. Have the auto makers broken any laws?
It says in the article that they're alleging "damages" from greenhouse gasses. Well we've known pollution was harmful to varying extents since the beginning of the industrial age, and have accepted that we're going to have it to one degree or another. When we think that degree should be less, then we pass a law that requires reduced emissions. That's what has been going on for years, what California has spearheaded and their new law addresses... So what the hell else do you want the auto makers to do? ICEs produce greenhouse gasses. They always have.
If you could prove the auto makers hid research on the dangers of car exhaust, or produced fake research showing it to be harmless, you may have something, but even then if they abided by emissions standards I just can't see the problem.
But this is California, after all. Progressive, trendy, often superficial, and, oh yeah, packed to the gills with lawyers.
Okay, I realize I'm replying to a joke that isn't trying to do more tie the first available news article to the most obvious rebuttle, even if they don't really match, but still.
Both sides claim victory
But only one discussed sacking those responsible for the "victory".
Ragtag militia gets 100 Million dollars a year from Iran Ragtag militia has advanced wire-guided anti-tank missles Ragtag militia has advanced anti-ship missles Ragtag militia holds 11% of the seats in parliament Ragtag militia's political bloc holds 27.5% of seats in parliment
While Israel spent over $9 billion on defense last year, and also receives aid from the U.S. On paper, it isn't supposed to be a contest. Based on Israel's boasting before the war, it wasn't supposed to be a contest. They've faced the full-fledged national armies of recognized modern states. This is a "rogue terrorist group" that despite its role in politics and de-facto rulership of the south, is not part of the Lebanese military. Yes, they have anti-tank missles (the majority being RPG-29s, not wire-guided) and just enough anti-ship weapons to keep Israel on their toes. Again, this is not the same as a full-fledged modern military, like the IDF is supposed to be. They are a guerilla force vs 1st-world military.
Hezbollah destroyed or damaged up to 50 tanks. Israel has 3600
Wow, that's even more than I thought! I had last heard it was less than 20. You do realize that is a lot of tanks, don't you? That's 50 MBTs in 38 days. That's more than twice what the U.S. has lost in three years of fighting. For a tank that's touted as having even more survivability than most other MBTs, that is a truly sad showing.
That's more than 1% of their entire tank force, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment, in just over a month in combat vs an enemy that can field neither armor nor air power. You're distrubingly disconnected from reality if you think "only" losing 50 tanks is anything but a disaster for Israel.
While fighting to a standstill, Israel was able to occupy ground up to 30km into Lebanon. While fighting to a standstill, Hezbollah was able to occupy ground up to -30km into Israel.
30km is pathetic when you're chasing after a guerilla force, who routinely retreat and give up villages and then come around to re-take the village you just left. That just means the farthest they drove into Lebanon was 30k, not that this actually represented military gain. Your second statement makes it look like you think Hezbollah actually wanted to invade Israel, which is retarded. Hezbollah didn't want to invade Israel, they wanted Israel to invade Lebanon so they could fight the IDF in their home turf where all their tunnels, pill boxes, and kill zones were prepared. Those 30km were Hezbollah's killing grounds, and as long as the IDF was stuck there they were in fact at a standstill.
Israel controls the land held by Hezbollah until an International force relieves them.
Your conflation of "is present in" with "controls" is rather amusing. Funny that the article you cite doesn't make it sound like Israel "controls" the land -- usually, if one of your helicoptors crashes in land you control, you're able to send rescuers to get the crew. I guess the problem was that Hezbollah didn't agree that IDF controlled it!
Hezbollah didn't expect a war at all
If Nasrallah said he didn't expect the Katyusha missles launched at Israel to kill civilians, that he thought they'd turn into flowers and bring peace between their peoples, would you believe him? You might, if inexplicable credulity served your purpose.
Yeah, Nasrallah didn't expect Israel to attack, despite Israel attacking the Palestinians after Hamas kidnapped a soldier just prior. That's believable. Or just maybe he's spinning it because he's trying to counter the criticism leveled at Hezbollah for provoking Israel, indirectly causing the destruction wrecked by IDF's bombing campaign? It's blatant P.R. to make Israel look brutal. Nobody with any sense actually thinks Hezbollah didn't want war.
The only victory is Hezbollah wasn't completely destroyed.
And in fact are stronger than ever. Israel was going to completely destroy them, and instead they are the ones who left. Yes, that's a huge victory.
They are shown as the kidnappers they are, show their utter lack of defiance and hatred to Israel, and the fact that they really don't care about their islamic beliefs (assuming Islam is really about Peace and tolerance as some of the muslim faiths have learned) Of course in a culture that rewards that it's a victory.
I don't think you meant "utter lack of defiance" as that makes no sense; they showed lots of defiance.
Anyway, that's all a Western view of Hezbollah that was already held anyway. You'll condemn muslims who wage wars as not being peaceful, but give our own Christian religion a pass on waging war. Whereas middle eastern muslims are more likely to view Hezbollah's actions as just, and Israel's as those of a violent religion and oppressive state.
But if your point is that this was a PR loss for Hezbollah, then again you're wrong. In the places where it counts, this was a great PR victory for Hezbolah.
The study I cited is, as I wrote, the original study by the Surgeon General's Office. At the time, nobody had even thought that Second Hand Smoke might be an issue, so they had no reason to take it into account.
Well, if they were not attempting to study the effects of second hand smoke, then that's fine. Their study may well be fine for what they intended it for. You, then, must realize that you can't extend the conclusion of the study to things it doesn't support, and not use it to claim second hand smoke isn't dangerous. Research aimed at answering that question has shown that it is.
I agree that claiming that Second Hand Smoke is worse than smoking is retarded, but I've heard people claim that.(Not, I'll admit, people in the main-stream of anti-smoking, but there are people who will take anything to extremes.)
Oh, well, yeah, and on a lot of issues I get infuriated by them, because they're loud and people remember what they say. Environmentalists, liberals, Christians, all have lunatics whose stupid antics end up smearing my good(ha!) name.
Knowing it's an extreme opinion, you can't use that as the bar to say second hand smoke is dangerous at all, or the lack of support for that extreme opinion to say that second hand smoke research is "bad pseudo-science". No, the science is good, second hand smoke is dangerous, and people claiming it is more dangerous that smoking itself are wrong, just like you are. These statements are all consistent and true.
Slashdot Mirror
How many NES or SNES games did you have? My brothers and I had a couple dozen on each system. That's not too tough to recreate with Nintendo's current pricing.
About 50 NES games and about a dozen SNES. I still have most of them and my SNES and NES still work. I can count on both hands the games that I ever actually play anymore from those systems. Assume that I want the convenience of having them on my main game console rather than having to screw around blowing in the NES. That still puts me, a pretty hard-core gamer with a lot of Big N history and nostalgia, at buying maybe half a dozen Virtual Console games.
Just think, for the price of an XBox 360 game you can get 12 NES games, 7 SNES games, or 6 N64 games. That seems pretty good to me.
But people with access to the Virtual Console will be buying Wii games, so the purchasing decision would be between a Wii game or 10 NES games. If I didn't know that certain NES games were and still are awesome, I would almost certainly go with the modern game. I wouldn't pay $5 for a random NES title I'd never heard of, no way. I'm not convinced the "casual" gamers would either, given that NES games will look primitive compared to the Flash or even cell phone games they've probably poked at.
Still the opportunity cost for N seems a little low. If they don't flood the VC with all the piles of crap ever produced for Nintendo systems (no Deadly Towers, no Superman 64), then maybe they can make the risk for the consumer low enough that they'll feel $5 is worth it.
The article says that their numbers come from Symantec's security threat report, but where does Symantec get their numbers from? Obviously to count a vulnerability, they have to know about it. Are they only counting ones they have verified, any that have been publicly announced, do they do their own research? Are we counting all the vulnerabilities that appear in bugzilla? Are we not counting the vulnerabilities that MS knows about but hasn't made public?
I can't really say, but to me it looks like exactly what I would expect from an open source system: More publicly known bugs (not necessarily more or less actual bugs), and a faster turnaround time on bugs.
The Virtual Console obviously wasn't made with you in mind, then. There are -tons- of games that I wouldn't pay the $5-$10 for, but there are those few that I will. And that's all that matters.
I certainly see where you're coming from, and I too will probably buy a few select games (though most of these games I have for my still-functional NES and SNES, may not be getting those either).
The thing is, for the "casual" gamer who may not have a long history with SNES and NES and who won't have a desperate urge to replay all the games they used to, $5 seems like a lot. It's hard to imagine someone browsing through these games and paying that much for an old NES game that they have no nostalgic memories of based on an 8-bit screenshot.
It just seems like the natural market for virtual console games is small, and to make it larger they're going to have to make it affordable to buy a few and try them.
Being conservative and classical in their business management gives them the financial stability to be progressive and innovative in their console design. That's just how I see it.
That's a much better idea than what I do, which is to create the need for a real 911 call.
"911 dispatcher? Hello? Yes, my address is 555 NotMyAddress, New York, MT. Is that what you have? It is? Great! That's what I wanted to know. Oh, the emergency? Of course there's an emergency, I wouldn't place a fake 911 call, ha ha! Yeah, I just stabbed a guy in the neck with a letter opener. on my front porch. That's right, some random guy, with a letter opener. Maybe he's a solicitor or something, is that important? He's bleeding pretty good, that ambulence should hurry. What was that -- why? Because I needed to make a 911 call and verify the address lookup of course!"
Words are based on letters. So should trademarks exist then? Or would you then say, "a trademark is not a patent"? Just wondering.. what I mean to say is how does your analogy hold in relation to language? (you have a good point IMO)
Software is based on letters (and other characters), but it represents math. Just like the letters you just read represent the concept "Software is characters, but represents math".
So it's pretty much the same thing with regards to language. The specific form of the language, the sequence of words and letters and punctuation, is the representation, and that representation can be copyrighted. However the concept embodied in those words and letters cannot, in general, be patented or otherwise protected.
Trademark is completely different than a patent, btw. "McDonald's" isn't an invention, it's a brand name, and the motivations for protecting it are very different. Notice how the McDonald's concept isn't protected at all.
Everything in the universe can be reduced to simpler elements that by themselves seem to defy property labels.
Except you don't have to reduce software to simpler elements to call it math.
Software is math, in the same way that "3 * y^2 + (7 / 6)x = z" is math.
Now you may argue that "3 * y^2 + (7 / 6)x" is actually a series of characters that represent math, but again, that's exactly the same as software. Software is a machine-readable representation of a series of mathematical statements, while the equation I wrote is a human-readable representation of mathematical statements. Actually, some programs would be able to parse the equation, as well.
Representations of mathematical concepts, aka software, can be covered by copyright, just like a book about math can be copyrighted. The concept represented, the math that the software is intended to convey, would not be patentable if it appeared in a book, but when it appears in source code, suddenly it is.
If you don't believe software is math, you just don't understand software.
To compute the result, you must press a few hundred thousand calculator buttons, all of them correctly and in the right order. Would having a calculator where instead you could push just a single button to give you the answer reliably have any value to you?
Your argument is effectively saying that it wouldn't. After all, it's just maths, right? Anyone can do it and we know it all already, so there's no no need to incentivise new research.
What? You think I'm arguing that neither math nor its reliable and speedy computation are valuable? Where did you get that?
What I'm saying is that codifying mathematics into a computer program does not change the fact that it is mathematics.
In your example there, you already have the algorithm (i.e. the math), and you want to execute it quickly and reliably at the push of a button, instead of entering it in each time. Of course that has value, but that additional value beyond the math itself is 1) the specification of the math in a computer-readable form and 2) the computer to run the specification.
The first is protected by copyright, the second by patents. The math itself, which is what patenting the part of software that isn't the specific fixed representation involves, is unpatentable, and for good reason.
No need to incentivize new research? The incentive is the usefulness of the mathematics, same as it has always been. Was there no mathematics research before the creation of software patents? What about after? That's rhetorical, of course.
By the way, as another poster pointed out, your choice of Newton as an example is rather ironic. Try reading a little of the history of Newton and Leibniz, particularly the extensive delay in Newton publishing his work on calculus, the allegations of plagiarism, and the divide in the mathematical community that resulted.
I knew about the fight, but not about the 30 year delay. Learn something new every day. I just hope you realize that if the early practitioners of computer science in the 50s and 60s had locked away their creations for 30 years, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Math builds upon math. Science builds upon math. Engineering builds upon math. Math is the fundamental language of technological progress, and locking math up in patents is to lock up the foundation of progress.
Why should I spend time inventing new algorithms, then?
The same reason you spend time writing software at all (that others with more resources may duplicate and undercut): The new algorithm solves a particular need of yours. It is useful.
This is why Sir Charles Hoare created the quicksort in 1960. It probably didn't even occur to him that this was something he should prevent others from using, and he still found it useful to invent. Thank God he did not -- could not -- patent it, or it would have been over a decade before people could have taken free advantage of the fastest-average-time general sorting algorithm known today. Imagine everyone else had been doing the same thing -- locking up merge sort, bin sort, r/b binary trees, avl binary trees, b-trees, etc etc. With all these foundations of computer science locked up in patents for 14-20 years, how much progress do you think the software world would have made compared to what it did with free access to all these ideas? Remember, we're talking about a fourth of the entire existence of computers.
Why does software not being a physical object make it less suitable to be patented?
Because software is math.
That's all it is. A program is just a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. Now the computer is an invention. But the software is just a calculation. Patenting a software algorithm is like patenting a sequence of button pushes on your calculator, and by "like" I mean "is very literally the same".
Imagine if Sir Issac Newton had decided to lock away his Calculus? He might have had some legal troubles from Leibniz, but once they came to an amicable arangement, everyone else would have been out of luck. Is Calculus not a great invention? Of course! But like all math, it is an invention whose benefit comes from what could be built upon it. Thank goodness that Newton published his book and did not restrict others from using what it described, or you have to wonder where we'd be today.
Why shouldn't software be patentable? Because it's a patent on math, the fundamental language of the universe.
Well said, and I agree with you 100%. The only real racism I see is people declaring other people racists.
Then your life is sheltered from real racism.
Sorry, I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but if you don't see racism it's because you're just not around it then. I regret to have to inform you that racism is still alive and well.
I'm amazed at the major changes they have to make to make the game work (the entire world gets flipped) but the biggest problems comes up simply "what about those who are left handed."
Actually that isn't much work, or at least doesn't have to be. Just add in a y-axis flip into your view transformation matrix and viola, the world is now a mirror-image. All that'd be left then is to make sure the rendering of mini- or full-screen maps are correct.
As far as "what about those who are left handed", I don't know. It seems odd to me that they would consider the handed-ness of people using the Wii to control the sword, but not make it an option. The blurb (RTFA? What's that mean?) suggests that the actual design of the gameplay depends on handed-ness, which is why to make Link right-handed they had to flip everything else as well. That doesn't make much sense to me.
It seems to me that market forces have been and will be sufficient to guarantee that the net is as neutral as the people want it to be.
No, government regulation has been sufficient to guarantee that the net is neutral. Now that that regulation no longer applies, I'm extremely eager to hear your theory of what market forces would discourage the telcos from discriminating based on packet source/destination. They have a ton of money to gain from extorting Google and other services.
Reviews vary since they are subjective by definition but usually looking at a number of reviews (even if you just look at their scores on an aggregator site) should give you a pretty good idea whether the game falls into the great, good or noise brackets.
Well that's my point -- the existence of a 1-10 rating scale, with decimal points, implies that one should be able to get better resolution than great, good, or crap. However it is the games in the "good" bracket whose scores seem to be random numbers between 8 and 10, and thus the fundamental question one would like to use a rating for -- "is game A a better game than game B" -- cannot be answered by review ratings. Not just because each person's "better" is different, but because the reviewer's own sense of "better" as expressed in the text of the reviews is not accurately reflected in the score itself. Which is unsurprising, because even sticking strictly to one human, they are not going to be able to come up with a way to map their own subjective feelings of "goodness" onto a 1-10 integer scale with any accuracy, much less one that allows half-point scores or, god forbid, tenth of a point.
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that all 30+ million Californians think and act alike.
You're right, that wasn't fair. Living in Texas, I'm familiar with the concept of being environmentally conscious while surrounded by people who aren't. Convincing them to stop driving their status symbols is tough.
I think it will take 3 things, in increasing order of important:
1) Education about the environmental impact of SUVs.
2) Education about the real safety of SUVs for the soccer mom crowd.
3) Economic motivation, whether that's making gas expensive or subsidizing efficient cars.
The problem is that none of these will affect those that drive them as status symbols.
Nonetheless, I have a hard time faulting California for attempting to enforce the law.
I don't have nearly enough background to know whether it's an effective attempt, but TFA sure makes it sound shakey. A court ruling about damages from global warming? That would be quite a thing. Like I said, I believe it's true, but it's like we're talking about suing the tobacco industry and it's 1970. The truth is really known, but it isn't solid enough to threaten a judgement, and thus force a settlement. I can't say for sure, but it sounds like something that's going to lose.
I am not, however, opposed to letting people decide for themselves what to do with their lives/communities/government. If we were to call that democracy, I would be all for bringing that to the Middle East, though I'm patently opposed to the idea of using force to do so (at least I'm opposed to using American/foreign forces to do so).
Well the fact is that you can't use force to bring it, at least as an external power coming into a situation from the outside. Especially the U.S., given our history there. However force will almost certainly be part of the solution. Really, the thing to do would have been to support an Iraqi insurgency against Saddam Hussein after Gulf War I, like we said we were going to. Imagine what is happening to us today with separate Iranian and al Qaeda supported insurgencies attacking us, vs a U.S.-backed insurgency against Hussein. It would have been tougher, because Hussein had a very good intelligence network in the country, but it would have been an effort of the Iraqis. Like France supported the American revolution without dictating the outcome.
Sadly that's impossible now. I can't see any course of action that has a good outcome. But like I said, that's because we imagined that enforcing democracy was the same as creating one, but it's not.
You're describing me exactly. I knew I was going to buy Nintendo's next console before we had heard the name "Revolution" because I knew two things:
1) It would be cheap, probably cheaper than the other consoles.
2) It would have Zelda, Mario, and Metroid.
This is why I knew I was going to buy a Gamecube instead of a PS2 (which was reasonably priced, but no Zelda) and Xbox (out on both counts).
I wasn't really excited about the GC, though. I'm kinda excited about the Wii. I really hope the controller comes through. That could make the Wii much more than just "the console with Zelda".
To top it off I'm watching this whole thing unfold via graphics that look like a Saturday morning cartoon.
Yes, it really did look like a Saturday morning cartoon, and that was part of what made the game so great stylistically.
Or what, are we not allowed to like cartoons if we want to be "mature" now either?
If that law is currently unenforceable due to legal challenges, how are you going to get damages for violating it? If it is enforceable, prosecute them for violating it. It seems to me they're trying to run around their legal problems by creating a new one -- the need to prove causation of global warming in court.
Now this is off-topic, but bringing democracy to the middle east is a great idea, so long as you are able to distinguish between "bring democracy to" and "force democracy upon". At this moment in the prevailing ideology they are the same, so I could see why you'd think it was dumb based on that connection.
which is what the study concludes, and what should be pretty obvious if you read lots of game reviews. Game ratings are basically random numbers between 8 and 10, and where it falls in that range seems to be largely divorced from the content of the review. How many times have you read a review that said something like "the gameplay was fun for the first few levels, but quickly became monotonous and boring" but gave the game a 9.5, or one that said "despite a few minor flaws, this game is all around a lot of fun" and gave it an 8? When I'm out looking for a game, I think I'm going to weigh "monotonous gameplay" a lot more than "Overall Score: 9, Excellent!".
I can understand them using the game rating, as it's the only obvious number you can apply to a game review and do correlations with. However just having a number doesn't mean it actually represents something, and I'm not surprised that game sales don't correlate well with a number that is basically pulled from the reviewer's ass.
All this is well and good, of course, if it weren't for the following: "In a series of recent cases, California's regulations have been challenged in court, not just by the auto industry, but by the federal government." So yes, CA needs to sue (technically, countersue, but who's counting?). The federal government has consistently hampered CA's attempts to clean up the air. Something needs to be done.
And this is something, therefore it needs to be done. Yeah, I'm familiar with that line of non-logic.
The objective may be to enforce the existing law. If the lawsuit itself is, as the article states, about suing for damages over global warming, then it is a foolish way to accomplish the objective. Whether it's bringing democracy to the middle east or reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the need to do something will never justify doing something dumb.
But of course, you're the phal^H^H^H^H environmentalist, so you probably knew all this already.
Good one, phal^H^H^H^H dick.
Some environmentalist you are. I've been complaining for years about the tricks the auto companies are pulling to avoid meeting the aggressive emissions and fuel mileage standards the state has been setting. Now, the state finally decides to get tough about it, and all you have are dick jokes. Nice.
Lol, dude, I've seen the tricks auto companies pull with regards to emissions standards when they came to the EPA emissions testing facility to negotiate over new standards while I worked there.
And I did RTFA, and as far as the article states the lawsuit does not regard violations of existing standards, i.e. breaches of the law. Only "damages for past and ongoing contributions to global warming". So I repeat: This is retarded.
Yeah, I'm "some" environmentalist. Like "some" environmentalists, I don't believe in doing utterly retarded things just because they are ostensibly about protecting the environment. If the auto makers are blocking enforcement of laws legally, address thos legal issues. If the automakers are actually violating the law, prosecute them for that. Sue for damages over causing global warming? That's a really stupid way to "get tough". Maybe you'll agree when they lose.
All that and dick jokes too. What do you got?
While we are talking lawsuit, what's the logical argument/premise going to be for filing the suit? If we hold the automobile manufacturers responsible then what of the users of their products? Are you going to say that the drivers of such automobiles are "addicted", so by their logic are immune to prosecution?
Disclaimer: I'm a environmentalist and believe in anthropogenic global warming. I think this is retarded.
You're absolutely right, it's not like anyone is physically addicted to the Chevy Suburban. Maybe they can't mentally shake the cultural effect that says they have to have a big shiny phal^H^H^H^H car to prove their status in society, but that sounds like their problem. If Californians think SUVs are harmful, then stop buying them you superficial idiots!
I'm not getting the basis for the suit. Have the auto makers broken any laws?
It says in the article that they're alleging "damages" from greenhouse gasses. Well we've known pollution was harmful to varying extents since the beginning of the industrial age, and have accepted that we're going to have it to one degree or another. When we think that degree should be less, then we pass a law that requires reduced emissions. That's what has been going on for years, what California has spearheaded and their new law addresses... So what the hell else do you want the auto makers to do? ICEs produce greenhouse gasses. They always have.
If you could prove the auto makers hid research on the dangers of car exhaust, or produced fake research showing it to be harmless, you may have something, but even then if they abided by emissions standards I just can't see the problem.
But this is California, after all. Progressive, trendy, often superficial, and, oh yeah, packed to the gills with lawyers.
Okay, I realize I'm replying to a joke that isn't trying to do more tie the first available news article to the most obvious rebuttle, even if they don't really match, but still.
Both sides claim victory
But only one discussed sacking those responsible for the "victory".
Ragtag militia gets 100 Million dollars a year from Iran
Ragtag militia has advanced wire-guided anti-tank missles
Ragtag militia has advanced anti-ship missles
Ragtag militia holds 11% of the seats in parliament
Ragtag militia's political bloc holds 27.5% of seats in parliment
While Israel spent over $9 billion on defense last year, and also receives aid from the U.S. On paper, it isn't supposed to be a contest. Based on Israel's boasting before the war, it wasn't supposed to be a contest. They've faced the full-fledged national armies of recognized modern states. This is a "rogue terrorist group" that despite its role in politics and de-facto rulership of the south, is not part of the Lebanese military. Yes, they have anti-tank missles (the majority being RPG-29s, not wire-guided) and just enough anti-ship weapons to keep Israel on their toes. Again, this is not the same as a full-fledged modern military, like the IDF is supposed to be. They are a guerilla force vs 1st-world military.
Hezbollah destroyed or damaged up to 50 tanks. Israel has 3600
Wow, that's even more than I thought! I had last heard it was less than 20. You do realize that is a lot of tanks, don't you? That's 50 MBTs in 38 days. That's more than twice what the U.S. has lost in three years of fighting. For a tank that's touted as having even more survivability than most other MBTs, that is a truly sad showing.
That's more than 1% of their entire tank force, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment, in just over a month in combat vs an enemy that can field neither armor nor air power. You're distrubingly disconnected from reality if you think "only" losing 50 tanks is anything but a disaster for Israel.
While fighting to a standstill, Israel was able to occupy ground up to 30km into Lebanon.
While fighting to a standstill, Hezbollah was able to occupy ground up to -30km into Israel.
30km is pathetic when you're chasing after a guerilla force, who routinely retreat and give up villages and then come around to re-take the village you just left. That just means the farthest they drove into Lebanon was 30k, not that this actually represented military gain. Your second statement makes it look like you think Hezbollah actually wanted to invade Israel, which is retarded. Hezbollah didn't want to invade Israel, they wanted Israel to invade Lebanon so they could fight the IDF in their home turf where all their tunnels, pill boxes, and kill zones were prepared. Those 30km were Hezbollah's killing grounds, and as long as the IDF was stuck there they were in fact at a standstill.
Israel controls the land held by Hezbollah until an International force relieves them.
Your conflation of "is present in" with "controls" is rather amusing. Funny that the article you cite doesn't make it sound like Israel "controls" the land -- usually, if one of your helicoptors crashes in land you control, you're able to send rescuers to get the crew. I guess the problem was that Hezbollah didn't agree that IDF controlled it!
Hezbollah didn't expect a war at all
If Nasrallah said he didn't expect the Katyusha missles launched at Israel to kill civilians, that he thought they'd turn into flowers and bring peace between their peoples, would you believe him? You might, if inexplicable credulity served your purpose.
Yeah, Nasrallah didn't expect Israel to attack, despite Israel attacking the Palestinians after Hamas kidnapped a soldier just prior. That's believable. Or just maybe he's spinning it because he's trying to counter the criticism leveled at Hezbollah for provoking Israel, indirectly causing the destruction wrecked by IDF's bombing campaign? It's blatant P.R. to make Israel look brutal. Nobody with any sense actually thinks Hezbollah didn't want war.
ROFL
Your catch phrase I assume?
The only victory is Hezbollah wasn't completely destroyed.
And in fact are stronger than ever. Israel was going to completely destroy them, and instead they are the ones who left. Yes, that's a huge victory.
They are shown as the kidnappers they are, show their utter lack of defiance and hatred to Israel, and the fact that they really don't care about their islamic beliefs (assuming Islam is really about Peace and tolerance as some of the muslim faiths have learned) Of course in a culture that rewards that it's a victory.
I don't think you meant "utter lack of defiance" as that makes no sense; they showed lots of defiance.
Anyway, that's all a Western view of Hezbollah that was already held anyway. You'll condemn muslims who wage wars as not being peaceful, but give our own Christian religion a pass on waging war. Whereas middle eastern muslims are more likely to view Hezbollah's actions as just, and Israel's as those of a violent religion and oppressive state.
But if your point is that this was a PR loss for Hezbollah, then again you're wrong. In the places where it counts, this was a great PR victory for Hezbolah.
The study I cited is, as I wrote, the original study by the Surgeon General's Office. At the time, nobody had even thought that Second Hand Smoke might be an issue, so they had no reason to take it into account.
Well, if they were not attempting to study the effects of second hand smoke, then that's fine. Their study may well be fine for what they intended it for. You, then, must realize that you can't extend the conclusion of the study to things it doesn't support, and not use it to claim second hand smoke isn't dangerous. Research aimed at answering that question has shown that it is.
I agree that claiming that Second Hand Smoke is worse than smoking is retarded, but I've heard people claim that.(Not, I'll admit, people in the main-stream of anti-smoking, but there are people who will take anything to extremes.)
Oh, well, yeah, and on a lot of issues I get infuriated by them, because they're loud and people remember what they say. Environmentalists, liberals, Christians, all have lunatics whose stupid antics end up smearing my good(ha!) name.
Knowing it's an extreme opinion, you can't use that as the bar to say second hand smoke is dangerous at all, or the lack of support for that extreme opinion to say that second hand smoke research is "bad pseudo-science". No, the science is good, second hand smoke is dangerous, and people claiming it is more dangerous that smoking itself are wrong, just like you are. These statements are all consistent and true.