Isn't there a plethora of prior art out there to disprove that this is a "new" idea that Microsoft, of all companies, came up with?
And look at this quote from the abstract: As such, the user can dynamically adjust the set of results and sub-items from a remote location. The system and method of the present invention preferably utilizes client-side processing to achieve real time interaction.
How can it be from a remote location if it is happening on the client-side? That would seem very local to me. But what do I know?
Look, we can get all the music we want for free, as citizens, on the radio, and all the movies we want, on cable tv. Why are they free for us? Because advertisers pay someone big money.
So, why don't they, the MPAA/RIAA, just create their own version of Kazaa, charge for advertising rates, and offer all their movies and music for free to the file sharers? Sounds like a win/win to me...even the artist gets at least what they are getting now from radio and television royalties.
I just want to know who the genius is that thought this was a good idea?
"Let's make the game more difficult to play with a pirated version which will prevent about 0% of piraters from playing the game illegaly, and prevent about 75% of legitimate users from easily playing the game after they have paid us their hard-earned money. Sound like a plan? Good, get on it. I expect to see large ROI numbers by next week."
If it is illegal to traffic in the technologies that allow or support circumvention of copy protection or access controls...shouldn't Sanford, the company that makes Sharpies, be gathering a group of their finest lawyers together for the inevitable lawsuits coming their way?
"I swear Mr. MPAA lawyerman, I only bought it for schoolwork! It is required in my Art class!"
Ah, but not everything I mentioned was based on the popularity of the movies, now was it?
The list of technical ground-breaking work they did while working on the original trilogy is very long. The directing and writing of ESB was particularly good, and it also went against the grain and ended on a less than upbeat note. Do these things count for nothing?
Sounds to me like you are just hyper-critical. Sure, the new movies are a serious let-down, but there is no need to knock the first three based on the last two's failures.
So far, we've got three movies which don't stand the test of time (the orignal three)
Dude, what are you talking about? By what standard are you measuring them?
Let's see, they changed the way we think about sequels, they were all in the top 10 grossing movies of all time at the time they came out, they were re-released 20 years after there intitial release and made millions, they set the standard for special effects in movies...
I just can't see what yardstick you are using to measure the 'test of time', but you seriously ought to reconsider this statement. These movies will be around for several more decades before their shine begins to fade. That is standing the test of time, if you ask me.
My boss just started this procedure last night. Her first night with the re-shaping contacts went well. Her vision was 100% in one eye, and 85% in the other, according to her doctor at the appointment this morning.
She said she slept fine, and has gone the whole day without her glasses. Apparently, after the first two weeks she will only need to wear the contacts at night once every three or four days.
No idiot Life Insurance salesman can enter my home by sneaking in because I left the window unlocked, and then have a right to remain there, standing over my bed or in front of my tv and every so often exclaim "Hey, this stuff is great. You need to get this cause you might die soon, and then what will your family do?".
So, why should spyware have those rights? Those are not freedom of expression rights. Sure, they may have the right to freedom of speech, but they cannot force me to listen. And I should have a haven, a safe place somewhere that I can go to avoid listening to their crap...I'll call that place my home. And I'll thank you kindly to stay the hell away unless I specifically and knowingly invite you in.
You have proven your point that you are not all about the dollars. Rather than take one of the best-selling, most awarded games (Starcraft) of all time and simply churn out a crappy sequel a year later to make money, you have waited patiently. It's been 6 years, you've been so patient.
We believe you. It is not about the money!
Now, having said that, when can we expect a highly updated, super-fun, Starcraft II?
They are trendsetters. They see clearly. They have integrity.
This press release is simply further proof that the Google officers are not only interested in themselves, but in the community around them, the nation as a whole, and even the world.
Sure, they are a for-profit organization, but they are showing it is not a contradiction in terms to be both for-profit and civic-minded.
Even if I have completely misunderstood their intentions, it sure looks as if they care, and that might just influence a few other companies, (are you listening Microsoft?) to adjust their thinking, put consumers first, and hold themselves to a higher standard.
Both of the pieces I mentioned could possibly serve a legitimate purpose, no?
And there are others, those are just the most recent two I have had to tell users to stop downloading.
Never heard of the Flynn effect. Will Google that.
This isn't one hundred percent on topic, but I wish someone could answer this question.
Why would producers of legitimate software, e.g. Kazaa, Weatherbug, etc. bundle their stuff with known spamware, ad-serving crap, and general spyware bullshit? Don't they realize that before long users will figure out where it is coming from and then stop downloading and installing their software all together?
What kind of fees do they usually command for allowing this type of bundling?
Any studio who uses Cliff in every single one of their movies, and produces multi-billion dollar hits out of those movies, must sure as hell know what they are doing.
Can you spot Cliff in every feature-length Pixar movie?
Well you see, Norm, it's like this...A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Who will create the next Unreal Tournament when no one feels like paying for them anymore? Will we bitch and moan on places like Slashdot about how "all current video games suck, why isn't anyone making any GOOD games anymore?", oblivious to the obvious causation - the fact that we've all turned to stealing our software/games/music/movies rather than paying for it?
You make some valid points, but this one above is not. The game industry is making more money than ever before, and is rivaling music and movies, yet people have been 'pirating' games for decades.
Not really a loophole, in my opinion, because of the way the judge phrased it...distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings.
This means the CRIA would have to prove the user distributed the file(s) (which they do not by simply placing them in a folder) or that they authorized the reproduction, which again, by simply storing them in a particular place on a hard drive does not give specific authorization. Could it be implied? Maybe...but there has been no precedent set to prove this, that I am aware of.
I just have to wonder when the game industry, RIAA, MPAA, etc., will give up this crusade?
I mean really, they can't win. Another poster said that what one man can do, another can undo.
Games, music, movies, books, and art have all been copied and used illegaly or sold illegaly. They absolutely cannot deter the criminal mind. Especially if the majority of a population views it as a harmless crime (downloading copywritten music).
So, my question: when will they give up? They can sue into oblivion, spending millions, getting a pittance back...it will not stop everyone. So, why continue? Is it about education? Teaching the masses what is wrong and what is right, so that eventually they will stop on their own?
What if it isn't wrong? Society makes its own rules, right? What if the opposite becomes true and society deems copying of original creations to be a legal act? I mean, we already have fair use, right? Extend it a bit...to anything goes. Will creators stop creating? Seems to me like those in the game industry already have, at least creating anything new and different.
The analogy is not flawed. You, as in the person checking out the book and reading it, are enjoying it for free. Completely free, since most library cards are free.
This was in direct contention to the parent's statement, that is all.
Maybe its not a threat economically, but your still enjoying the fruits of the musician's labor without paying for it.
Doesn't this same thing occur every time you listen to the radio?
You might say no because there are advertisers who are paying for the space, which the radio station then gives a portion to the music industry, thus paying the artist back...a pittance.
Well, consider this. By downloading a song, many people, according to the study, often go purchase cd's from these artists whose music they have enjoyed for free. This is even better for the artist because they get at least a little more because it is direct revenue for them and the music industry.
Another example, you can go check out a book from the library for free and read it in its entirety. For free! Not a single cent goes to the author. Yet, you're still enjoying the fruits of the author's labor without paying for it.
Peter Jackson already built a random hobbit generator.
It worked ok for a while, then it started repeating..which made it clear it was not truly random. Altough, Elijah tried to fake it by saying random lines from the script whenever he forgot the real lines. Peter just left them in anyway.
Funny...I once found out drudge's and rush limbaugh's AIM screen names so I made them a buddy. I have never communicated with them, but I can watch them log on and off.
How long will it be before I am hunted down by Al Franken and body slammed to the ground?
Slashdot Mirror
And look at this quote from the abstract: As such, the user can dynamically adjust the set of results and sub-items from a remote location. The system and method of the present invention preferably utilizes client-side processing to achieve real time interaction.
How can it be from a remote location if it is happening on the client-side? That would seem very local to me. But what do I know?
So, why don't they, the MPAA/RIAA, just create their own version of Kazaa, charge for advertising rates, and offer all their movies and music for free to the file sharers? Sounds like a win/win to me...even the artist gets at least what they are getting now from radio and television royalties.
"Let's make the game more difficult to play with a pirated version which will prevent about 0% of piraters from playing the game illegaly, and prevent about 75% of legitimate users from easily playing the game after they have paid us their hard-earned money. Sound like a plan? Good, get on it. I expect to see large ROI numbers by next week."
"I swear Mr. MPAA lawyerman, I only bought it for schoolwork! It is required in my Art class!"
Your observations are good and you clearly put your time into really reading the story, so I appreciate your investment.
I will take the best parts and make myself a better writer.
Curious, though, about what you thought of the rest of the story, or if you only read the first chapter or so?
Thanks.
The list of technical ground-breaking work they did while working on the original trilogy is very long. The directing and writing of ESB was particularly good, and it also went against the grain and ended on a less than upbeat note. Do these things count for nothing?
Sounds to me like you are just hyper-critical. Sure, the new movies are a serious let-down, but there is no need to knock the first three based on the last two's failures.
Dude, what are you talking about? By what standard are you measuring them?
Let's see, they changed the way we think about sequels, they were all in the top 10 grossing movies of all time at the time they came out, they were re-released 20 years after there intitial release and made millions, they set the standard for special effects in movies...
I just can't see what yardstick you are using to measure the 'test of time', but you seriously ought to reconsider this statement. These movies will be around for several more decades before their shine begins to fade. That is standing the test of time, if you ask me.
I'll see if she is ready to share her experience and point her in your direction, if so.
She said she slept fine, and has gone the whole day without her glasses. Apparently, after the first two weeks she will only need to wear the contacts at night once every three or four days.
Not a bad trade off for close to 20/20 vision.
I can still go back and play any of these and have the same amount of fun and interest. Talk about replayability...Starcraft came out in 1998!
Metroid Prime didn't hold my attention for very long, so I never even finished it. But I hadn't thought about why, really, until this article.
I saw that movie already. It was called Bubbe Ho-tep. Only it was an elderly Elvis and a black JFK fighting a mummy. Otherwise, basically the same.
So, why should spyware have those rights? Those are not freedom of expression rights. Sure, they may have the right to freedom of speech, but they cannot force me to listen. And I should have a haven, a safe place somewhere that I can go to avoid listening to their crap...I'll call that place my home. And I'll thank you kindly to stay the hell away unless I specifically and knowingly invite you in.
You have proven your point that you are not all about the dollars. Rather than take one of the best-selling, most awarded games (Starcraft) of all time and simply churn out a crappy sequel a year later to make money, you have waited patiently. It's been 6 years, you've been so patient.
We believe you. It is not about the money!
Now, having said that, when can we expect a highly updated, super-fun, Starcraft II?
Sincerely,
A Believer
This press release is simply further proof that the Google officers are not only interested in themselves, but in the community around them, the nation as a whole, and even the world.
Sure, they are a for-profit organization, but they are showing it is not a contradiction in terms to be both for-profit and civic-minded.
Even if I have completely misunderstood their intentions, it sure looks as if they care, and that might just influence a few other companies, (are you listening Microsoft?) to adjust their thinking, put consumers first, and hold themselves to a higher standard.
Both of the pieces I mentioned could possibly serve a legitimate purpose, no? And there are others, those are just the most recent two I have had to tell users to stop downloading. Never heard of the Flynn effect. Will Google that.
This isn't one hundred percent on topic, but I wish someone could answer this question. Why would producers of legitimate software, e.g. Kazaa, Weatherbug, etc. bundle their stuff with known spamware, ad-serving crap, and general spyware bullshit? Don't they realize that before long users will figure out where it is coming from and then stop downloading and installing their software all together? What kind of fees do they usually command for allowing this type of bundling?
Can you spot Cliff in every feature-length Pixar movie?
Well you see, Norm, it's like this...A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Who will create the next Unreal Tournament when no one feels like paying for them anymore? Will we bitch and moan on places like Slashdot about how "all current video games suck, why isn't anyone making any GOOD games anymore?", oblivious to the obvious causation - the fact that we've all turned to stealing our software/games/music/movies rather than paying for it? You make some valid points, but this one above is not. The game industry is making more money than ever before, and is rivaling music and movies, yet people have been 'pirating' games for decades.
This means the CRIA would have to prove the user distributed the file(s) (which they do not by simply placing them in a folder) or that they authorized the reproduction, which again, by simply storing them in a particular place on a hard drive does not give specific authorization. Could it be implied? Maybe...but there has been no precedent set to prove this, that I am aware of.
I mean really, they can't win. Another poster said that what one man can do, another can undo.
Games, music, movies, books, and art have all been copied and used illegaly or sold illegaly. They absolutely cannot deter the criminal mind. Especially if the majority of a population views it as a harmless crime (downloading copywritten music).
So, my question: when will they give up? They can sue into oblivion, spending millions, getting a pittance back...it will not stop everyone. So, why continue? Is it about education? Teaching the masses what is wrong and what is right, so that eventually they will stop on their own?
What if it isn't wrong? Society makes its own rules, right? What if the opposite becomes true and society deems copying of original creations to be a legal act? I mean, we already have fair use, right? Extend it a bit...to anything goes. Will creators stop creating? Seems to me like those in the game industry already have, at least creating anything new and different.
This was in direct contention to the parent's statement, that is all.
Doesn't this same thing occur every time you listen to the radio?
You might say no because there are advertisers who are paying for the space, which the radio station then gives a portion to the music industry, thus paying the artist back...a pittance.
Well, consider this. By downloading a song, many people, according to the study, often go purchase cd's from these artists whose music they have enjoyed for free. This is even better for the artist because they get at least a little more because it is direct revenue for them and the music industry.
Another example, you can go check out a book from the library for free and read it in its entirety. For free! Not a single cent goes to the author. Yet, you're still enjoying the fruits of the author's labor without paying for it.
Open your mind, see the possibilities.
It worked ok for a while, then it started repeating..which made it clear it was not truly random. Altough, Elijah tried to fake it by saying random lines from the script whenever he forgot the real lines. Peter just left them in anyway.
"Sam, don't you miss the Shire?"
"I sure do, Mr. Frodo...I sure do."
How long will it be before I am hunted down by Al Franken and body slammed to the ground?