The capacity of these drives that I can't buy yet goes up and up! Oh boy!! I'm so excited that there's a format in a lab somewhere completely unavailable to me that could back up so many of my files on a single disk, if only I had one!
If TV producers had brains, what they'd do is supply free downloads of their own, with ads, requiring only that you fill out a survey. If they were to do that, they could do really spiffy ad-targetting that is impossible with network TV.
The thing about good ad targetting is that people are more likely to watch the ad and more likely to buy the advertised product. In other words, if the people making these shows stopped fighting the internet and started using the internet, they could actually make more money on ads.
But they're too wrapped up in old models that are hard to maintain in modern times. But someone will do it, make a mint, and put them out of business.
I did the exact same thing. I missed the miniseries, then watch the torrent because of the buzz. I know own it on DVD. Yeah, they really "lost" money when I "stole" it.
But these names are only supposed to apply to a narrow domain. I can, for example, open "Apple Delicatesin" tomorrow. I can start advertising Windows Plumbing Service" tomorrow. I don't see any reason why common names are a problem when they apply to a narrow domain.
This suit is bogus because it is not at all confusing to have a "Tiger" OS and a "Tiger Direct" computer reseller. These aren't the same products. The commonness of the name makes no difference. There are like what, at best, twenty OSes in the world? There's no reason to worry about real, honest to God name collisions.
You mention Ford. Are you saying that Fred Ford should be allowed to sell cars called "Ford"? Do you think that'd be good for the consumer?
The only real problem with trademark law today is that lawyers sue knowing that that their victims will settle. (For instance, Penny Arcade certainly would have won had they fought.) That's not a problem with trademark law, that's a problem with a legal system in which money rules.
Because it's a "Trademark". Please read up on them so that you know what they are.
The purpose of a trademark is to prevent others from selling under your name. It's what prevents me from starting a search engine named "Google", and what prevents you from opening a computer company named "Apple".
Doesn't that seem like common sense? Do you really think it'd be "common sense" for me to be allowed to manufacture computers and tell people they are "Apple Computers"?
Trademarks have nothing to do with inventiveness. They are about preventing people from trying to deliberately confuse their products with someone else's. Do you think that's a bad thing? Do you really want Microsoft to have the right to start selling something under the name "Linux"? 'Cause if you don't, then it's exactly this trademark law that prevents it.
Yes, TigerDirect's claim was bogus, but not because Trademark law is bogus. It is bogus because no reasonable purpose would confuse TigerDirect the computer reseller with Tiger the operating system.
The don't think they can model the world with incredibly flawed assumptions. They think they can sell papers with important looking numbers generated by whatever flawed assumptions will make them big enough.
I'll skip work for a movie I know is good. As for this thing...I've been burned twice. I'll let all you guys go the first day. That way, I can find out on slashdot if it is any good, or is yet another Lucasonian fiasco. I can wait until the second weekend. If it's what I think it is, I can wait for the DVD.
Twenty years at start. After that, renewable at the rate of $1/year until the death of the original authors. (Note: NOT the corporation that hired them.)
Copyrights can be sold, but only the original author can elect to renew the copyright.
Do you realize that at the end of the year, unless congress changes its mind, broadcasters can transmit only in HDTV, which means that you'll need a new $200 tuner to get the signal?
Good TV SF is far, far more available today than it ever has been. I remember being a kid in the mid-seventies, when the only way you could see SF on TV was, yes, "Star Trek" on some independent.
Today I've got a pile of Firefly and Stargate DVDs and a bunch of Dr. Who torrents to watch.
When I as a kid, I had the forelorn hope of catching one of the 79 Star Trek episodes. My kid will have five years of B5 episodes, nine years of X-Files episodes, ten years of Stargate SG-1 episodes, who knows how many years of BSG episodes, etc, etc. Not to mention all the movies, and all of it far better than the crap like Star Trek and the original Galactica I lapped up like a poor starving puppy when I was a kid.
Probably because when the code was written, there were only 25 planes, so 32,000 changes "would never be reached". There's probably a decent chance the line had a comment that said something like "// Make sure to change this if we ever need more than 32,000 changes!".
Then, no one looked at the code for 11 years.
That's how this happens. Not because people are stupid, but because people simply aren't looking at the old crufty code. They're too busy with new projects.
A lot of bittorrent use is sort of "grey market" infringment. Like missing "Survivor" at the regular time, so you downloaded it, or downloading things like "Doctor Who" in the US where there is no legitimate way to watch it.
But more to the point, legally speaking, it doesn't matter of the majority of uses are illegitimate. What matters is if there is a significate legitimate use. That's trivial to show for bittorrent.
The more people that use something, the more support for it there will be, so the more features, bug-fixing, plugins and updates there will be.
Plus, as a working programmer, I'd much rather work on a sane system like a Unix variant than the damn Windows API I am forced to deal with. The more popular Linux (and/or OS/X) becomes, the more likely I can get a job doing so.
What I want to know: why are we still bothering with streaming audio when so many people have enough bandwidth to grab an hour of audio in a minute or so?
Slashdot Mirror
Now if it was an XBox wired so it only got power from an exercise bike...that'd be genius!
I wasn't aware that "Pointless Press Release" was a crucial part of developing a piece of hardware.
Why Slashdot? Because, of course, the guys who work for google are all dorks.
The capacity of these drives that I can't buy yet goes up and up! Oh boy!! I'm so excited that there's a format in a lab somewhere completely unavailable to me that could back up so many of my files on a single disk, if only I had one!
Bittorrent wouldn't allow them to target ads.
If TV producers had brains, what they'd do is supply free downloads of their own, with ads, requiring only that you fill out a survey. If they were to do that, they could do really spiffy ad-targetting that is impossible with network TV.
The thing about good ad targetting is that people are more likely to watch the ad and more likely to buy the advertised product. In other words, if the people making these shows stopped fighting the internet and started using the internet, they could actually make more money on ads.
But they're too wrapped up in old models that are hard to maintain in modern times. But someone will do it, make a mint, and put them out of business.
I did the exact same thing. I missed the miniseries, then watch the torrent because of the buzz. I know own it on DVD. Yeah, they really "lost" money when I "stole" it.
All that you'd lose is the high ratings for the first episode. In episoding TV, this is hardly worth worrying about.
But these names are only supposed to apply to a narrow domain. I can, for example, open "Apple Delicatesin" tomorrow. I can start advertising Windows Plumbing Service" tomorrow. I don't see any reason why common names are a problem when they apply to a narrow domain.
This suit is bogus because it is not at all confusing to have a "Tiger" OS and a "Tiger Direct" computer reseller. These aren't the same products. The commonness of the name makes no difference. There are like what, at best, twenty OSes in the world? There's no reason to worry about real, honest to God name collisions.
You mention Ford. Are you saying that Fred Ford should be allowed to sell cars called "Ford"? Do you think that'd be good for the consumer?
The only real problem with trademark law today is that lawyers sue knowing that that their victims will settle. (For instance, Penny Arcade certainly would have won had they fought.) That's not a problem with trademark law, that's a problem with a legal system in which money rules.
The purpose of a trademark is to prevent others from selling under your name. It's what prevents me from starting a search engine named "Google", and what prevents you from opening a computer company named "Apple".
Doesn't that seem like common sense? Do you really think it'd be "common sense" for me to be allowed to manufacture computers and tell people they are "Apple Computers"?
Trademarks have nothing to do with inventiveness. They are about preventing people from trying to deliberately confuse their products with someone else's. Do you think that's a bad thing? Do you really want Microsoft to have the right to start selling something under the name "Linux"? 'Cause if you don't, then it's exactly this trademark law that prevents it.
Yes, TigerDirect's claim was bogus, but not because Trademark law is bogus. It is bogus because no reasonable purpose would confuse TigerDirect the computer reseller with Tiger the operating system.
To run out and fight the crowds on opening day? Hah.
Why should I? The next day, slashdot will be full of comments that let me know exactly how good the movie is.
If were from a director that was consistent, sure, it might be worth it.
Yes, those phones have cameras. Crappy cameras. People sure like them a lot, yeah, but they don't use them to replace their standalone camera.
The don't think they can model the world with incredibly flawed assumptions. They think they can sell papers with important looking numbers generated by whatever flawed assumptions will make them big enough.
I'll skip work for a movie I know is good. As for this thing...I've been burned twice. I'll let all you guys go the first day. That way, I can find out on slashdot if it is any good, or is yet another Lucasonian fiasco. I can wait until the second weekend. If it's what I think it is, I can wait for the DVD.
Serenity...I'm skipping work for that.
Twenty years at start. After that, renewable at the rate of $1/year until the death of the original authors. (Note: NOT the corporation that hired them.)
Copyrights can be sold, but only the original author can elect to renew the copyright.
Do you realize that at the end of the year, unless congress changes its mind, broadcasters can transmit only in HDTV, which means that you'll need a new $200 tuner to get the signal?
Broadcast is meaningless. It's dying.
Good TV SF is far, far more available today than it ever has been. I remember being a kid in the mid-seventies, when the only way you could see SF on TV was, yes, "Star Trek" on some independent.
Today I've got a pile of Firefly and Stargate DVDs and a bunch of Dr. Who torrents to watch.
When I as a kid, I had the forelorn hope of catching one of the 79 Star Trek episodes. My kid will have five years of B5 episodes, nine years of X-Files episodes, ten years of Stargate SG-1 episodes, who knows how many years of BSG episodes, etc, etc. Not to mention all the movies, and all of it far better than the crap like Star Trek and the original Galactica I lapped up like a poor starving puppy when I was a kid.
Kids today have it made as far as filmed SF goes.
Probably because when the code was written, there were only 25 planes, so 32,000 changes "would never be reached". There's probably a decent chance the line had a comment that said something like "// Make sure to change this if we ever need more than 32,000 changes!".
Then, no one looked at the code for 11 years.
That's how this happens. Not because people are stupid, but because people simply aren't looking at the old crufty code. They're too busy with new projects.
A lot of bittorrent use is sort of "grey market" infringment. Like missing "Survivor" at the regular time, so you downloaded it, or downloading things like "Doctor Who" in the US where there is no legitimate way to watch it.
But more to the point, legally speaking, it doesn't matter of the majority of uses are illegitimate. What matters is if there is a significate legitimate use. That's trivial to show for bittorrent.
It'd give my kid nightmares. He'd wake up screaming "Other guy take my robot! I want my robot! Don't take my robot, guy!"
Helps with spam? Yes. "removes the email spam problem"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!
The more people that use something, the more support for it there will be, so the more features, bug-fixing, plugins and updates there will be.
Plus, as a working programmer, I'd much rather work on a sane system like a Unix variant than the damn Windows API I am forced to deal with. The more popular Linux (and/or OS/X) becomes, the more likely I can get a job doing so.
In other words, simple self-interest.
Live? Most of that is pre-taped.
What I want to know: why are we still bothering with streaming audio when so many people have enough bandwidth to grab an hour of audio in a minute or so?
(Microsoft being second to last.)