You mean a child, once born, requires a father for normal psychological development (which is probably true). The act of reproduction is depending less and less on the father the father we go.
Charging someone $50K to be a lab rat reserves a special brimstone pool for you.
I would not be at all surprised if an infertile couple read this article and then went to the researchers and begged for the privilege of paying $50K to be a lab rat.
You pay Verant $20 (or whatever) a month to in effect rent a small chunk of the game at a time. All the game content is owned by Verant, you are just paying to use it. Therefore, my position on this (like anyone cares what I think:) ) is that a player may sell his account but not specific items.
The player's account, defined here as the character and including all his stats, represents a large investment of time by the player. The charcter is unique and was created entirely by the player during his time in EQ . If the player wants to turn his accumulated time and effort into money and/or transfer it to another player, I have no problem with that; Vernat doesn't have a claim on the character since the player made it.
Items, on the other hand, are, as said before, pretty much rented. Your character is allowed to use those items because you pay Verant $20 a month (and found them in the game, but the former is required for the latter anyway). They are created from scratch by Verant and they are Verant's property, all you own is the ability to use them. You may freely trade them with other characters because that is an option that Verant has decided to give you, but charging for them may constitute illegal resale.
Your attitude disgusts me. Stealing is not a matter of what is done to the original owner, it is a matter of the act itself. DirctTV is a product that the company that owns it has chosen to charge money for. If you want DTV, pay for it. If you don't want to pay, do without it.
Whatever ethical tricks you try to use, you have stolen from DTV the money your subscription would have given them, and that's wrong.
So many things have happened recently that seem to contradict many of the supposed missions of the FCC (AOL/TW: communications regulation. CPRM: consumer rights protection. And so on.). Quite often, the cry is raised, "Why didn't the FCC do anything about this???".
So I ask: What in your opinion is the primary function of the FCC?
One of my values is that everyone has the right to rape everyone else on sight. I hereby rape you. I don't believe that rape is a crime, so I cannot be prosecuted. Bye now. Enjoy that dull pain in your anus for the next few days.
But seriously... The whole point of a society is that the people in it have found that they have sufficient values in common to get along. Those values then form the basis of laws in the society. If the whole society believes that rape is a crime, then it is a crime to anyone within that society. Anyone who does not believe that rape is a crime has the option to leave the society, at which point he cannot be punished (ignoring of course any unpunished rapes he committed). Punishment of crime is the eye-for-an-eye of society as a whole against the criminal.
I think one of the points of the article was that the equipment has only just been miniaturized to the point at which it can fit inside a 747 at all; it still takes up the entire plane. So there won't be any way of "sneaking" it around covertly on a flight disguised as something else.
And as others have pointed out, any plane dedicated to this purpose would be easy to recognize.
I have encountered many places where OOP is placed as the main priority for any programming task. Make it object-oriented and all problems become easy etc etc etc.
OOP is a tool, like any other language feature. If the problem you are trying to solve could be easily done with a collection of interacting, self-contained objects, go for it. If not, use something else.
For example [entering the flamebait zone], I have never seen the point of making the entire app a class. Can someone explain to me how this is better than a simple main function?
If you want to send a signal to a device with a CD burner in it, it won't go.
How are they planning to enforce this? No CD burner available today has this access control built in, and they will be usable for years to come. Even if/when CDRs do have it built in, it wouldn't be that hard to alter the drivers for it.
So what is my cable provider charging me for each month? If I don't pay, I don't get to
watch the shows. No, I'm not paying per show, but I am paying to receive the channels
that they're shown on. Doesn't sound like "free" to me.
You are paying for the physical cable itself, the one that plugs into the back of your TV and runs a few miles to where it plugs into the cable company. This is like complaining about "recurring charges" at the gas station preventing you from driving your car.
an entrenched two-party system that now seems to be sliding alramingly towards oligarchy? ( hillary, george jr., etc ).
As many others have pointed out elsewhere, political power in the US comes from votes. If those people seem to be in high places, it's because more people wanted to put them there than to keep them out, which is exactly how the US is supposed to work.
How is that America's, the country's fault? It's the fault of the people who went along with it and the people who could have stopped it but didn't. Pepsi has passed no laws, they have stopped no one from forming militias or worshipping Baal if they want to, they have not usurped any power reserved for the government.
I agree with what you said, but a crime must be attributed to the committer.
All those corporations are already supported by their existing product lines and have money to burn on experimenting. There are no viable companies whose business relies solely on open source software.
Change the term "copy protection" to "copy prevention". The latter is much more accurate and doesn't have the connotation that copying is inherently bad.
Does anyone else think 3Dfx's naming conventions are completely stupid? There would be the model, which is a number, and the product, which is another number. Voodoo3 2000, 3000, 3500, V4, V5 5500, V5 6000...
OK, so I could run Inferno in IE in Windows in VPC in my Mac?
But wait, what about OS X? Then I could run Inferno in IE in Windows in VPC in the Classic environment in my Mac.
I wonder if any of the PC emulators could handle VPC itself. Then you could run Inferno in IE in Windows in Mac in Windows in Mac in Windows in Mac in Windows...
Copyright of screenshots
on
EULA In Games
·
· Score: 1
IMNSHO IANAL:
A word processor is a tool that allows you to create content, it typically comes with no content of its own. When you create a document with a word processor, 99% of what you see on the screen was created by you (the words, the diagrams, etc). You own it and the word processor is the means of displaying it.
A game is a (large) amount of content combined with an already-provided method for displaying it. 99% of what you see on the screen was created by the company's artists and modelers. When you take a screenshot, you are merely rearranging their content into a different form; the only thing you have added to the game is your location, inventory, etc.
It's like photographs... If you take a photo of something natural or in the public domain, you own the copyright on it. If you take a photo which consists mostly of copyrighted content (say, xerox a library book), or more relevantly, if you create a collage consisting entirely of the copyrighted work of others, you don't own it.
[this is not an endorsement of current copyright law]
Moore's Law is not an axiom (a law which is accepted without proof). It's more of a rule of thumb.
Perhaps a quantum processing unit (QPU?) would be more useful as a self-contained accelerator card for a traditional computer.
Which brings us to something I've always wondered: How does does one (efficientl) program a quantum computer? Wouldn't the time spent configuring the atoms with their billions of values exceed the time saved by the quantum operations?
At which point, since the lawyers have been following this case, site B produces the contract they made Company A sign when the specs were handed over, which says that the specs have been provided legally and for journalistic purposes and Company A is being an incompetent whiny b*tch (yes, that is legal terminology).
What's wrong with "copyright violation becom[ing] stigmatized"? I think this would be a good thing. Big corporations would have less of a hair trigger when it came to the net, the door would be more open for a legitimate micropayment system (since it would no longer be the case that 99% of the audience wants/knows how to go it for free), and so on.
If you think copyright law is a bad thing (Disclaimer: I don't), then try to get the law changed. Don't just break the law and wait for someone else to change it for you.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean a child, once born, requires a father for normal psychological development (which is probably true). The act of reproduction is depending less and less on the father the father we go.
You pay Verant $20 (or whatever) a month to in effect rent a small chunk of the game at a time. All the game content is owned by Verant, you are just paying to use it. Therefore, my position on this (like anyone cares what I think :) ) is that a player may sell his account but not specific items.
The player's account, defined here as the character and including all his stats, represents a large investment of time by the player. The charcter is unique and was created entirely by the player during his time in EQ . If the player wants to turn his accumulated time and effort into money and/or transfer it to another player, I have no problem with that; Vernat doesn't have a claim on the character since the player made it.
Items, on the other hand, are, as said before, pretty much rented. Your character is allowed to use those items because you pay Verant $20 a month (and found them in the game, but the former is required for the latter anyway). They are created from scratch by Verant and they are Verant's property, all you own is the ability to use them. You may freely trade them with other characters because that is an option that Verant has decided to give you, but charging for them may constitute illegal resale.
Your attitude disgusts me. Stealing is not a matter of what is done to the original owner, it is a matter of the act itself. DirctTV is a product that the company that owns it has chosen to charge money for. If you want DTV, pay for it. If you don't want to pay, do without it.
Whatever ethical tricks you try to use, you have stolen from DTV the money your subscription would have given them, and that's wrong.
So many things have happened recently that seem to contradict many of the supposed missions of the FCC (AOL/TW: communications regulation. CPRM: consumer rights protection. And so on.). Quite often, the cry is raised, "Why didn't the FCC do anything about this???".
So I ask: What in your opinion is the primary function of the FCC?
One of my values is that everyone has the right to rape everyone else on sight. I hereby rape you. I don't believe that rape is a crime, so I cannot be prosecuted. Bye now. Enjoy that dull pain in your anus for the next few days.
But seriously... The whole point of a society is that the people in it have found that they have sufficient values in common to get along. Those values then form the basis of laws in the society. If the whole society believes that rape is a crime, then it is a crime to anyone within that society. Anyone who does not believe that rape is a crime has the option to leave the society, at which point he cannot be punished (ignoring of course any unpunished rapes he committed). Punishment of crime is the eye-for-an-eye of society as a whole against the criminal.
I think one of the points of the article was that the equipment has only just been miniaturized to the point at which it can fit inside a 747 at all; it still takes up the entire plane. So there won't be any way of "sneaking" it around covertly on a flight disguised as something else.
And as others have pointed out, any plane dedicated to this purpose would be easy to recognize.
I have encountered many places where OOP is placed as the main priority for any programming task. Make it object-oriented and all problems become easy etc etc etc.
OOP is a tool, like any other language feature. If the problem you are trying to solve could be easily done with a collection of interacting, self-contained objects, go for it. If not, use something else.
For example [entering the flamebait zone], I have never seen the point of making the entire app a class. Can someone explain to me how this is better than a simple main function?
How is that America's, the country's fault? It's the fault of the people who went along with it and the people who could have stopped it but didn't. Pepsi has passed no laws, they have stopped no one from forming militias or worshipping Baal if they want to, they have not usurped any power reserved for the government. I agree with what you said, but a crime must be attributed to the committer.
All those corporations are already supported by their existing product lines and have money to burn on experimenting. There are no viable companies whose business relies solely on open source software.
How 31337 are you?
:)
Change the term "copy protection" to "copy prevention". The latter is much more accurate and doesn't have the connotation that copying is inherently bad.
I got First Martian! WOO!
Does anyone else think 3Dfx's naming conventions are completely stupid? There would be the model, which is a number, and the product, which is another number. Voodoo3 2000, 3000, 3500, V4, V5 5500, V5 6000...
OK, so I could run Inferno in IE in Windows in VPC in my Mac?
But wait, what about OS X? Then I could run Inferno in IE in Windows in VPC in the Classic environment in my Mac.
I wonder if any of the PC emulators could handle VPC itself. Then you could run Inferno in IE in Windows in Mac in Windows in Mac in Windows in Mac in Windows...
IMNSHO IANAL:
A word processor is a tool that allows you to create content, it typically comes with no content of its own. When you create a document with a word processor, 99% of what you see on the screen was created by you (the words, the diagrams, etc). You own it and the word processor is the means of displaying it.
A game is a (large) amount of content combined with an already-provided method for displaying it. 99% of what you see on the screen was created by the company's artists and modelers. When you take a screenshot, you are merely rearranging their content into a different form; the only thing you have added to the game is your location, inventory, etc.
It's like photographs... If you take a photo of something natural or in the public domain, you own the copyright on it. If you take a photo which consists mostly of copyrighted content (say, xerox a library book), or more relevantly, if you create a collage consisting entirely of the copyrighted work of others, you don't own it.
[this is not an endorsement of current copyright law]
Why is it that when Apple uses alpha effects in Mac OS X it's "a waste of CPU power" but when KDE uses alpha effect it's "pretty sweet"?
You forgot idchoppers and idkfa. And I don't even like Doom :)
Perhaps we are, in fact, small and insignificant.
Moore's Law is not an axiom (a law which is accepted without proof). It's more of a rule of thumb.
Perhaps a quantum processing unit (QPU?) would be more useful as a self-contained accelerator card for a traditional computer.
Which brings us to something I've always wondered: How does does one (efficientl) program a quantum computer? Wouldn't the time spent configuring the atoms with their billions of values exceed the time saved by the quantum operations?
At which point, since the lawyers have been following this case, site B produces the contract they made Company A sign when the specs were handed over, which says that the specs have been provided legally and for journalistic purposes and Company A is being an incompetent whiny b*tch (yes, that is legal terminology).
What's wrong with "copyright violation becom[ing] stigmatized"? I think this would be a good thing. Big corporations would have less of a hair trigger when it came to the net, the door would be more open for a legitimate micropayment system (since it would no longer be the case that 99% of the audience wants/knows how to go it for free), and so on.
If you think copyright law is a bad thing (Disclaimer: I don't), then try to get the law changed. Don't just break the law and wait for someone else to change it for you.