I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions.
So instead of bribing my Joe-Schmoe-congressman with a wad of cash, I'll have to bribe my tech-geek-congressman with the latest WiFi gadget instead?
someone might make a copy of the music they purchased for themselves
From the article:
Users will be able to browse, download, store and play song files, record them on a mini-disc or transfer them to other digital music devices, said Any Music CEO Fujio Noguchi.
Many of the games that are fairly commonly available in Japan would be illegal to ship into many states of the US because of these types of laws.
Perhaps I didn't fully explain my point. You're talking about the scenario in which a game is created in a place where certain preventative laws do not exist. It can't be shipped to certain areas because such laws do exist in other places. Obviously, acting in accordance with the existence/lack of laws within your area is acceptable. On the other hand, by violating laws within that area, you're crossing a line. Thus, AmericanSoftwareCompanyX couldn't release "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme" alongside the latest Quake sequel.
If you want to make a game about something, no matter what it is, go right ahead.
Only to a point. There is a line, though, when it comes to violating certain laws. I don't think you'd have the "freedom" to create a kiddie pr0n game, which other paedophiles could download and play at their leisure. Sure you could do it, but law enforcement would be on its way pretty quick. Flying planes into a building, while certainly murderous, is in an entirely different category.
In typical fashion, special interests are attaching their wish lists to an initiative that seems to have a good chance of becoming law.
Congressman 1: "Then it is unanimous. We are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of..." Congressman 2: "Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill. Thirty million dollars of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts." Congressman 1: "All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-Pervert bill?"
(jeers and boos) Congressman 1: "Bill defeated."
The "control" is all about the group of people you select to observe, not that you actually control them in any meaningful way.
You've misinterpreted what I was asking. By "control", I meant "control the number of outside influences over the years" rather than "specify the participants' behaviours".
Oh no, I'm not arguing the concept of random sampling, nor its validity. Random sampling, if controlled properly, is a great tool. It's a good point. What I do object to are these studies that span many years and claim that they are, indeed, controlled enough to be trusted. From the article:
...four large-scale studies in the United States and Britain that followed thousands of participants from childhood to adulthood.
Random sampling is great for studies that are guaranteed to be controlled, but how do you control a study group that has various influences, upbringings, teachings, interactions, experiences and whatnot over years or decades?
Ahhh, preaching from the blissful safety of being AC? In any case...
Why don't you read the damned study before drawing a conclusion. If they statistically controlled for certain variables then perhaps their inferences are correct.
Having read the article already, your complaint is irrelevant. My point is not that they didn't control for certain variables, but that there are far too many variables to control to make this a reliable study. What is one of those tall people had a wicked sense of humour and was given a better position after a great interview? What if another taller individual applied to a company that naturally pays higher salaries? What if a 6'5" person got a promotion due to their work skills? How does one remove all of these factors, in order to conclude that higher salaries come from increased height?
Of course, you're free to believe what you want to believe, even if it's horribly naive.
I'm always doubtful about studies like this. While they claim that certain variables like weight, gender, etc. were controlled, I suspect there are other variables that come into play here. Did each participant have the same background? Training? Did they choose the same occupation? Do they live in the same area? Blah blah blah.
This is likely one of those "research causes cancer in rats" conclusions.
I can just imagine the conversation that must have taken place when they were building Stonehenge:
"What can we do to immortalize our civilization?" "Hey, let's build a giant stone monument with no discernable purpose!" "Man, that will mess with their heads for YEARS!"
What I always find surprising is that people will just try to figure out a website.
While whitehouse.(com/gov) is a good example of why cybersquatting is a nasty business, I prefer web addresses to be inherently "guessable". In a perfect Internet setting, I shouldn't have to use Google to know that ID Software is at idsoftware.com. In general, I'm happier when I can figure out a website rather than having to rely on a third-party to locate it for me.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. The "figuring out" isn't so bad, but cybersquatting does take its toll and is a pain in the ass.
"Internet users consider the service a helpful tool to navigate the web."
I'd guess that most Internet users, not being part of the Slashdot-loving geek crowd, aren't even aware of the service to begin with. More than likely, the poll asks a question like, "Would you, as an internet user, appreciate a service whereby a system locates the correct web site when you make a mistake?" I can see most people saying "yes" to that.
Patents and trademarks are two very different things. Lindows won their case against trademark-infringement because a judge ruled that "Windows" was too generic a term. Patent cases are another matter entirely and, given the past record, often far more damaging.
...now it turns out I should've been specifying an edition number also.
Why not do this in the first place? Anyone who's written a university essay knows the importance of edition numbers. Page-numbering is particularly vulnerable, since even small clarifications will shift things around.
A different, and likely just as effecitive alternative, is to not specify the recipe number at all. Surely there's an index where you could look up "Schwartzian transform" without hard-coding the number.
Slashdot Mirror
His name was Thomas Jefferson, anyone heard of him?
This is Slashdot. Unless he's an obscure Apple employee or FSF spokesperson, I'd say "no".
You're overly optimistic.
I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens, making detailed, objective analysis of the issues, arriving at rational conclusions and actions.
So instead of bribing my Joe-Schmoe-congressman with a wad of cash, I'll have to bribe my tech-geek-congressman with the latest WiFi gadget instead?
with your UID there's PLENTY of prior art around
And when has that stopped the patent office before?
What does this have to do with patents? I don't think patents were involved here at all.
I'm patenting the act of not reading the article before posting a headline or comment. I figure 99.9% of Slashdotters will owe me millions.
someone might make a copy of the music they purchased for themselves
From the article:
Users will be able to browse, download, store and play song files, record them on a mini-disc or transfer them to other digital music devices, said Any Music CEO Fujio Noguchi.
Many of the games that are fairly commonly available in Japan would be illegal to ship into many states of the US because of these types of laws.
Perhaps I didn't fully explain my point. You're talking about the scenario in which a game is created in a place where certain preventative laws do not exist. It can't be shipped to certain areas because such laws do exist in other places. Obviously, acting in accordance with the existence/lack of laws within your area is acceptable. On the other hand, by violating laws within that area, you're crossing a line. Thus, AmericanSoftwareCompanyX couldn't release "Pre-teen Gangbang Extreme" alongside the latest Quake sequel.
If you want to make a game about something, no matter what it is, go right ahead.
Only to a point. There is a line, though, when it comes to violating certain laws. I don't think you'd have the "freedom" to create a kiddie pr0n game, which other paedophiles could download and play at their leisure. Sure you could do it, but law enforcement would be on its way pretty quick. Flying planes into a building, while certainly murderous, is in an entirely different category.
I thought it was all about the sex appeal...
Given titles like BMX XXX and DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball, you may be right.
If I don't have a mc, windows, or an ipod, am I left out in the cold?
I know. I tried to install iTunes on my IBM PC XT, but couldn't jam the CD into the 5 1/4" drive. Insensitive clods!
Yes, if by "sell" you mean "be downloaded via Kazaa for free".
The humour is what made the games. Why people would pay for pixelated boobs alone, given the abundance of free internet sites today, is beyond me.
Al Lowe has nothing to do with this new game.
So there will be ten times as many boobs and ten times less humour than any of the original LSL games? Just retire the poor guy.
In typical fashion, special interests are attaching their wish lists to an initiative that seems to have a good chance of becoming law.
Congressman 1: "Then it is unanimous. We are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of..."
Congressman 2: "Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill. Thirty million dollars of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts."
Congressman 1: "All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-Pervert bill?"
(jeers and boos)
Congressman 1: "Bill defeated."
The "control" is all about the group of people you select to observe, not that you actually control them in any meaningful way.
You've misinterpreted what I was asking. By "control", I meant "control the number of outside influences over the years" rather than "specify the participants' behaviours".
Oh no, I'm not arguing the concept of random sampling, nor its validity. Random sampling, if controlled properly, is a great tool. It's a good point. What I do object to are these studies that span many years and claim that they are, indeed, controlled enough to be trusted. From the article:
Random sampling is great for studies that are guaranteed to be controlled, but how do you control a study group that has various influences, upbringings, teachings, interactions, experiences and whatnot over years or decades?
Ahhh, preaching from the blissful safety of being AC? In any case...
Why don't you read the damned study before drawing a conclusion. If they statistically controlled for certain variables then perhaps their inferences are correct.
Having read the article already, your complaint is irrelevant. My point is not that they didn't control for certain variables, but that there are far too many variables to control to make this a reliable study. What is one of those tall people had a wicked sense of humour and was given a better position after a great interview? What if another taller individual applied to a company that naturally pays higher salaries? What if a 6'5" person got a promotion due to their work skills? How does one remove all of these factors, in order to conclude that higher salaries come from increased height?
Of course, you're free to believe what you want to believe, even if it's horribly naive.
I'm always doubtful about studies like this. While they claim that certain variables like weight, gender, etc. were controlled, I suspect there are other variables that come into play here. Did each participant have the same background? Training? Did they choose the same occupation? Do they live in the same area? Blah blah blah.
This is likely one of those "research causes cancer in rats" conclusions.
I think scientists tend to find what they want to find, not always what is there.
During one of my archaeology classes, the standard phrase was "when in doubt, label it as 'ceremonial purpose'".
Sacrifice GB/GBC support for 10GBP? I'd rather pay the little extra (~17USD) for the official product and have built-in support for all three systems.
If it was 'in everyone's interest to get all relevant prior art out into the open,' as Bezos said, then what happened?
Money changed hands?
I can just imagine the conversation that must have taken place when they were building Stonehenge:
"What can we do to immortalize our civilization?"
"Hey, let's build a giant stone monument with no discernable purpose!"
"Man, that will mess with their heads for YEARS!"
What I always find surprising is that people will just try to figure out a website.
While whitehouse.(com/gov) is a good example of why cybersquatting is a nasty business, I prefer web addresses to be inherently "guessable". In a perfect Internet setting, I shouldn't have to use Google to know that ID Software is at idsoftware.com. In general, I'm happier when I can figure out a website rather than having to rely on a third-party to locate it for me.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. The "figuring out" isn't so bad, but cybersquatting does take its toll and is a pain in the ass.
"Internet users consider the service a helpful tool to navigate the web."
I'd guess that most Internet users, not being part of the Slashdot-loving geek crowd, aren't even aware of the service to begin with. More than likely, the poll asks a question like, "Would you, as an internet user, appreciate a service whereby a system locates the correct web site when you make a mistake?" I can see most people saying "yes" to that.
Apparently it doesn't.
But it doesn't hurt. You know, as a backup plan, just in case that UFO behind the comet doesn't get here in time to save me.
Uh oh, I've said too much.
Patents and trademarks are two very different things. Lindows won their case against trademark-infringement because a judge ruled that "Windows" was too generic a term. Patent cases are another matter entirely and, given the past record, often far more damaging.
Why not do this in the first place? Anyone who's written a university essay knows the importance of edition numbers. Page-numbering is particularly vulnerable, since even small clarifications will shift things around.
A different, and likely just as effecitive alternative, is to not specify the recipe number at all. Surely there's an index where you could look up "Schwartzian transform" without hard-coding the number.