What I think he means is that right now the focus is on creating realistic 3d worlds. In other words, making it look pretty. It's not until that goal is met that the industry will focus on something else such as AI.
A 33% discount isn't really enough. At first I'd offer a 50% discount, maybe even more. As more and more people stopped using real books I'd stop selling real books, forcing the remaining people with brains to buy my DRM crap. Then I'd jack the price up to 120%.
Do you really want the US government to be the largest producer of porn in the world?! When you're taking 25% of all the profits, that's exactly what you become: a stock holder.
And what happens when the government gets used to that money flowing in? As with any cash cow, laws will be implemented to keep it flowing. We'll end up with MORE porn. Not that it's really a bad thing, but I doubt if it's the good senator's ultimate goal.
I'm sorry, but to ask why a governmental policy is a secret is now a crime. Please report to your nearest Homeland Security Office for re-education. Thank you very much.
The main reason not to offer free WiFi is to avoid leachers. You know, the type that will come in, buy hardly anything, use the connection for hours, all while tying up a table a paying customer could be using.
I'd recommend a "free" connection tied to a minimum purchase price with a maximum time limit. That'd keep real customers happy and get rid of the leaches.
Merely because something is old does NOT mean it should be replaced. We're still building houses out of wood after thousands of years. Our cars run on internal combustion engines. And after all these years we're still carbon based life forms.
You admit it's "fine," that it "works," and that there is "good stuff" in it. If all of that is true, then why replace it merely because it's old?! That kind of mentally makes no sense.
Out of thousands of games released you came up with three. Thanks for proving my point.
I'm NOT saying OpenGL is dead. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm merely saying that the vast majority of games come in D3D. Merely because a small minority of games come out in OpenGL doesn't change the fact that D3D has won the 3D API battle.
My guess, and this is purely a guess, is that it's because the Unreal3 engine uses D3D while the Doom3 engine is OpenGL. Let's face it, the ONLY PC games available in OpenGL are games made from id engines. Other than id, everyone one else has moved on.
I'm not saying that D3D is better in anyway, I'm just stating a guess.
On one hand you want them to spend a huge budget on one movie verses a lot of movies. On the other hand, you realize that big budget movies suck.
I'm more of the latter opinion. I don't think you need a lot of money to make great Sci-Fi. One of my favorite Sci-Fi movies is Pi. Aronofsky probably could have made a hundred great movies for what Spielberg paid for War of the Worlds.
And let's not forget the Twilight Zone. That was a great Sci-Fi show, but the budget for a year of those shows probably wouldn't pay Spielberg's on-set catering bill for a week.
Also the more money you have the more you're going to spend on special effects. When you have no budget for special effects, you're forced to write a compelling plot with interesting characters rather than filling up time with "cool" looking nonsense.
Sure he's completely immoral, but he definitely knows how the trademark system REALLY works.
First, from the article it's clear that he puts the "stealth" mark on nearly everything, including air conditioners. That at the very least gives him a legal basis to sue.
Second, he's more than willing to settle for what would be considered nominal amount. While a few grand might be nothing to K-Mart, if he gets enough of them they add up quickly.
The fourth and last is that he's never actually WON a lawsuit! He's had this great settlement record even though he gets his butt kicked everything he enters a court room. That takes a lot of balls.
I'm not saying I like the guy, or even respect him. In fact, if I could get away with it, I'd ensure he got a slow and painful death. I'm just saying he knows all the flaws in our system and he's taking good advantage of them. And maybe if enough people start doing this, our system will change for the better.
The only difference between recording a show and sharing music with your friends is in the quantity of infringing involved as they both make copies of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder. But like I said, the quantity is not the standard, it's the intent.
So, once again, what's the difference between what Sony did and what Grokster did?
Yeah, but advertisements for Sony's beta recorder specifically claimed you could use it to record over the air programming! Thus, Sony showed an intent for users to violate copyrights.
What has changed? Why was it fair use when Sony did it but illegal when Grokster does it?
And the whole "intent" standard leads to fear. Did the engineer behind the copy machine have an intent? Did the creator of the printing press? Did engineer who created the first CD burner?
And here's the real problem: Who determines intent? A judge or jury at trial. Thus, you could have NO intent to have users infringe, but you still have to go through a trial, spend a lot of money, and risk losing to protect your new technology.
The only companies capable of doing such a thing would have deep pockets but would also have no desire of upsetting the status quo. Both Intel and Microsoft have been courting the content industries, not antagonizing them.
And besides, innovative technology rarely comes from the status quo, but from smaller companies.
Basically, the Grokster is going to kill more innovation than even software patents!
The original posting claims that only 12 percent of viewers watch over-the-air broadcasts. That's probably true, but the vast majority of satellite and cable viewers are also using analog broadcasts. Merely because it comes from a satellite or a cable does NOT mean it's not also analog. Even so called "digital cable" is not necessarily HD.
And unlike the FCC HD mandate for over-the-air broadcasts, there are no similar mandates for either satellite or cable. Thus, they could continue broadcasting analog or non-HD for decades to come.
Slashdot Mirror
So, it lasts a whole four weeks before dying?!
Isn't it more like a chain of mistrust?!
What I think he means is that right now the focus is on creating realistic 3d worlds. In other words, making it look pretty. It's not until that goal is met that the industry will focus on something else such as AI.
You're right. Thanks for clearing that up.
A 33% discount isn't really enough. At first I'd offer a 50% discount, maybe even more. As more and more people stopped using real books I'd stop selling real books, forcing the remaining people with brains to buy my DRM crap. Then I'd jack the price up to 120%.
In the US we don't need a reason to start a war.
Dvorak was right!
s p
"Wikis and any public reviewing or consensus processes have to be regulated and closed to the public at large for them to work effectively over time."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1835858,00.a
Ted Nugent can finally go to 11!
Wait, that's BAD news. Sorry.
Do you really want the US government to be the largest producer of porn in the world?! When you're taking 25% of all the profits, that's exactly what you become: a stock holder.
And what happens when the government gets used to that money flowing in? As with any cash cow, laws will be implemented to keep it flowing. We'll end up with MORE porn. Not that it's really a bad thing, but I doubt if it's the good senator's ultimate goal.
I'm sorry, but to ask why a governmental policy is a secret is now a crime. Please report to your nearest Homeland Security Office for re-education. Thank you very much.
The main reason not to offer free WiFi is to avoid leachers. You know, the type that will come in, buy hardly anything, use the connection for hours, all while tying up a table a paying customer could be using.
I'd recommend a "free" connection tied to a minimum purchase price with a maximum time limit. That'd keep real customers happy and get rid of the leaches.
"it generally just feels childish and unprofessional"
I think you nailed why young people like it.
Merely because something is old does NOT mean it should be replaced. We're still building houses out of wood after thousands of years. Our cars run on internal combustion engines. And after all these years we're still carbon based life forms.
You admit it's "fine," that it "works," and that there is "good stuff" in it. If all of that is true, then why replace it merely because it's old?! That kind of mentally makes no sense.
Instead of buying one and then throwing it away, wouldn't it make more sense to simply NOT buy it in the first place?
Out of thousands of games released you came up with three. Thanks for proving my point.
I'm NOT saying OpenGL is dead. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm merely saying that the vast majority of games come in D3D. Merely because a small minority of games come out in OpenGL doesn't change the fact that D3D has won the 3D API battle.
I actually like "downrezed." I use it when I conversate. For example, "I downrezed the virii threat on my puter."
My guess, and this is purely a guess, is that it's because the Unreal3 engine uses D3D while the Doom3 engine is OpenGL. Let's face it, the ONLY PC games available in OpenGL are games made from id engines. Other than id, everyone one else has moved on.
I'm not saying that D3D is better in anyway, I'm just stating a guess.
On one hand you want them to spend a huge budget on one movie verses a lot of movies. On the other hand, you realize that big budget movies suck.
I'm more of the latter opinion. I don't think you need a lot of money to make great Sci-Fi. One of my favorite Sci-Fi movies is Pi. Aronofsky probably could have made a hundred great movies for what Spielberg paid for War of the Worlds.
And let's not forget the Twilight Zone. That was a great Sci-Fi show, but the budget for a year of those shows probably wouldn't pay Spielberg's on-set catering bill for a week.
Also the more money you have the more you're going to spend on special effects. When you have no budget for special effects, you're forced to write a compelling plot with interesting characters rather than filling up time with "cool" looking nonsense.
Sure he's completely immoral, but he definitely knows how the trademark system REALLY works.
First, from the article it's clear that he puts the "stealth" mark on nearly everything, including air conditioners. That at the very least gives him a legal basis to sue.
Second, he's more than willing to settle for what would be considered nominal amount. While a few grand might be nothing to K-Mart, if he gets enough of them they add up quickly.
The fourth and last is that he's never actually WON a lawsuit! He's had this great settlement record even though he gets his butt kicked everything he enters a court room. That takes a lot of balls.
I'm not saying I like the guy, or even respect him. In fact, if I could get away with it, I'd ensure he got a slow and painful death. I'm just saying he knows all the flaws in our system and he's taking good advantage of them. And maybe if enough people start doing this, our system will change for the better.
Sony told users to infringe copyrights.
Grokster told users to infringe copyrights.
The only difference between recording a show and sharing music with your friends is in the quantity of infringing involved as they both make copies of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder. But like I said, the quantity is not the standard, it's the intent.
So, once again, what's the difference between what Sony did and what Grokster did?
"DO NOT YELL...."
Are you saying I shouldn't act like you?!
"recording the copyrighted stuff to view another time is fair use."
It only became fair use BECAUSE of the Sony v Universal decision. Prior to that it was NOT fair use.
"If Sony's advertisements had said "With Betamax, you can record movies and send copies to thousands of people for free!""
You're arguing quantity. The standard is NOT quantity. The standard is now intent. Have you been listening at all?
Read what I wrote again. Sony had ADVERTISEMENTS showing how users could RECORD SHOWS OFF THE AIR!!! How is that NOT an intent to infringe?
Yeah, but advertisements for Sony's beta recorder specifically claimed you could use it to record over the air programming! Thus, Sony showed an intent for users to violate copyrights.
What has changed? Why was it fair use when Sony did it but illegal when Grokster does it?
And the whole "intent" standard leads to fear. Did the engineer behind the copy machine have an intent? Did the creator of the printing press? Did engineer who created the first CD burner?
And here's the real problem: Who determines intent? A judge or jury at trial. Thus, you could have NO intent to have users infringe, but you still have to go through a trial, spend a lot of money, and risk losing to protect your new technology.
The only companies capable of doing such a thing would have deep pockets but would also have no desire of upsetting the status quo. Both Intel and Microsoft have been courting the content industries, not antagonizing them.
And besides, innovative technology rarely comes from the status quo, but from smaller companies.
Basically, the Grokster is going to kill more innovation than even software patents!
The original posting claims that only 12 percent of viewers watch over-the-air broadcasts. That's probably true, but the vast majority of satellite and cable viewers are also using analog broadcasts. Merely because it comes from a satellite or a cable does NOT mean it's not also analog. Even so called "digital cable" is not necessarily HD.
And unlike the FCC HD mandate for over-the-air broadcasts, there are no similar mandates for either satellite or cable. Thus, they could continue broadcasting analog or non-HD for decades to come.