As if I didn't see that coming? I think my UID says I've been here awhile.
It's not that I'm asking Slashdot to do my work for me; I've already got some very strong leads to work on. However, Slashdot occasionally surprises me with people that are thoughtful and working in interesting fields, so I figured I'd give it a shot. Most of the changes in my life have come from sudden and unexpected directions; I wanted to see what serendipity might bring me that deliberation would not.
So, self-defense is not a right because it's a defense?
The ways that rights are implemented in law differ. In this case, fair use is a right, and the mechanism by which that right is codified is immunity from prosecution for exercising it.
Wouldn't it just be easier to install this sort of thing directly at outgoing US cables? Instead of pumping a bunch of crap across the domestic lines, why not just spew it at the border?
...there's another site doing the exact same thing, located in a different country.
Attempting to fight these sites is entirely ineffective, and won't even scare the populace like suing individuals does. As for the $110 million, well... good luck? I wouldn't bet on getting more than 1%.
Re:Online gaming sacrificed for greater good
on
Who Owns Software?
·
· Score: 1
Glider doesn't cheat. It automates the boring parts of the game. Cheating can be (mostly) solved by adding more muscle to the servers and connections, and trusting the client less. Preventing someone from automating their client is much harder.
Why is quoting a movie insightful? Fiction always turns out the way you want it to. If you want your movie to be about how people get discriminated against for genetic reasons, it can easily be fact in your fictional world. That doesn't mean it's the way things will play out in the real world; that's why it's called "fiction".
Would you say companies don't take other discrimination laws seriously? There is, of course, some violation, but I think they do have a meaningful impact (for good or ill is another argument I won't get into).
However, here the programmer is using the program in a way that doesn't comply with the EULA.
Except that it can't be proven he's agreed the the EULA. He's not playing a game, but distributing software that interacts with it.
Even if he had violated the EULA, I really don't think you can be sued for that. It just means (assuming the EULA is valid, which is by no means certain) that you lose the ability to use the software.
Therefore, he is not only violating the EULA, but also their copyright, because he is making a copy for an unauthorized purpose.
The first point is invalid (see above). The second point has no truth to it at all. Despite corporate brainwashing, copyright doesn't mean you have to use the work like the creator says. It means that you can only distribute it to others with rather severe restrictions. Since he doesn't seem to be distributing copies of the game, copyright doesn't apply.
Except that religion was a part of it straight through the Kobol arc in the first and second seasons (which was, IMHO, one of the best parts of the series,and many people agree). No, the problem was that they just did a bunch of one-off episodes with no real resolution or consequences. E.g. (Season 3 spoilers follow): The return of Bulldog and revelations about corruption and warmongering in the admiralty. That went nowhere. The killing of Sagittarons? Swept under the rug and forgotten. The unhappiness and emerging classism in the fleet? 10 second resolution at the end, and not a peep since.
Likewise, had Apple opened its iTunes-iPod juggernaut to outside developers, the company would have risked turning its uniquely integrated service into a hodgepodge of independent applications -- kind of like the rest of the Internet, come to think of it.
Yeah, and who the hell's ever heard of this "rest of the Internet" thing.
Then a legitimate patent exists on the algorithm used to detect those gaps. That would reward legitimate research and innovation. Patenting the general concept of such insertion does not.
I don't think that anyone who says "there's no difference" actually means it literally. There are obvious, well publicized differences on several key issues (abortion, gun control, etc.). What they mean is that there isn't a lot of significant philosophical difference between the two. Both parties are, compared to the rest of the world, very right-wing. Both have strong anti-libertarian leanings. Instead of selecting candidates based on an overall approach to government, U.S politics are generally played by litmus tests for 3-5 issues (The war, gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, gun control). Claiming that there must be a significant difference because a computer can detect a difference is fallacious.
A competition like this builds visibility. More people will realize that independent people are creating good music and giving it away for free. When people can get more of their music for free, they will probably spend less on commercial music. Thereby sticking it to the RIAA.
What? That's blatantly wrong. The people are not empowered to have any direct impact on U.S. policy, by design of the constitution. Particularly on a single issue, it is impossible to actually compel congress unless it is seen to be a matter of "paramount" importance that could swing a lot of voters the other way in the next election (which, sadly enough, can be some pretty trivial or incorrect things). Indeed, it is very difficult in the U.S. system for the public to enforce its will on any single issue, again by design.
Perhaps you're trying to draw a connection between the fact that a few congressmen might not necessarily have the power to compel, parallel to the fact that the complaints of people might not have the power to compel congress? That doesn't appear to match with the state of Congress described (i.e. important members of the relevant committees have spoken against this move).
But then it's disingenuous to label the grumbling of a few individuals in congress to be the "complaints of congress" (rather than "complaints of several congressmen"). Identifying those complaints with the entire body indicates that they should have enough power within the body to make an official statement (which, in the case of Congress, generally comes in the form of a bill).
Slashdot Mirror
As if I didn't see that coming? I think my UID says I've been here awhile.
It's not that I'm asking Slashdot to do my work for me; I've already got some very strong leads to work on. However, Slashdot occasionally surprises me with people that are thoughtful and working in interesting fields, so I figured I'd give it a shot. Most of the changes in my life have come from sudden and unexpected directions; I wanted to see what serendipity might bring me that deliberation would not.
Ah, I figured it was something like that.
I think you mean "regularly" or "usually" when you say "structurally".
So, self-defense is not a right because it's a defense?
The ways that rights are implemented in law differ. In this case, fair use is a right, and the mechanism by which that right is codified is immunity from prosecution for exercising it.
Wouldn't it just be easier to install this sort of thing directly at outgoing US cables? Instead of pumping a bunch of crap across the domestic lines, why not just spew it at the border?
...there's another site doing the exact same thing, located in a different country.
Attempting to fight these sites is entirely ineffective, and won't even scare the populace like suing individuals does. As for the $110 million, well... good luck? I wouldn't bet on getting more than 1%.
Glider doesn't cheat. It automates the boring parts of the game. Cheating can be (mostly) solved by adding more muscle to the servers and connections, and trusting the client less. Preventing someone from automating their client is much harder.
This is a highly unexpected hiccup in what I'm sure Rockstar assumed would be a smooth and uncontroversial launch.
Why is quoting a movie insightful? Fiction always turns out the way you want it to. If you want your movie to be about how people get discriminated against for genetic reasons, it can easily be fact in your fictional world. That doesn't mean it's the way things will play out in the real world; that's why it's called "fiction".
Would you say companies don't take other discrimination laws seriously? There is, of course, some violation, but I think they do have a meaningful impact (for good or ill is another argument I won't get into).
Doctor Who Christmas Special 2008!
We're not going to fix the memory leaks.
(Seriously though, I love Firefox. But please remember why it was spun-off from Mozilla in the first place...)
Just like when you design software with the understanding that software can fail, you've failed before you've even begin?
At least then you can guarantee the bounced emails won't be taking up disk space?
Except that religion was a part of it straight through the Kobol arc in the first and second seasons (which was, IMHO, one of the best parts of the series,and many people agree). No, the problem was that they just did a bunch of one-off episodes with no real resolution or consequences. E.g. (Season 3 spoilers follow): The return of Bulldog and revelations about corruption and warmongering in the admiralty. That went nowhere. The killing of Sagittarons? Swept under the rug and forgotten. The unhappiness and emerging classism in the fleet? 10 second resolution at the end, and not a peep since.
Then a legitimate patent exists on the algorithm used to detect those gaps. That would reward legitimate research and innovation. Patenting the general concept of such insertion does not.
I don't think that anyone who says "there's no difference" actually means it literally. There are obvious, well publicized differences on several key issues (abortion, gun control, etc.). What they mean is that there isn't a lot of significant philosophical difference between the two. Both parties are, compared to the rest of the world, very right-wing. Both have strong anti-libertarian leanings. Instead of selecting candidates based on an overall approach to government, U.S politics are generally played by litmus tests for 3-5 issues (The war, gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, gun control). Claiming that there must be a significant difference because a computer can detect a difference is fallacious.
A competition like this builds visibility. More people will realize that independent people are creating good music and giving it away for free. When people can get more of their music for free, they will probably spend less on commercial music. Thereby sticking it to the RIAA.
Yes, but when it comes to US foreign policy, all representatives are assumed to be equally incompetent.
What? That's blatantly wrong. The people are not empowered to have any direct impact on U.S. policy, by design of the constitution. Particularly on a single issue, it is impossible to actually compel congress unless it is seen to be a matter of "paramount" importance that could swing a lot of voters the other way in the next election (which, sadly enough, can be some pretty trivial or incorrect things). Indeed, it is very difficult in the U.S. system for the public to enforce its will on any single issue, again by design.
Perhaps you're trying to draw a connection between the fact that a few congressmen might not necessarily have the power to compel, parallel to the fact that the complaints of people might not have the power to compel congress? That doesn't appear to match with the state of Congress described (i.e. important members of the relevant committees have spoken against this move).
But then it's disingenuous to label the grumbling of a few individuals in congress to be the "complaints of congress" (rather than "complaints of several congressmen"). Identifying those complaints with the entire body indicates that they should have enough power within the body to make an official statement (which, in the case of Congress, generally comes in the form of a bill).