Scheduling life and work based on a pulsar would need to somehow override the biological tendency of the human body to synchronize its activity cycle to sunlight levels, which are correlated to the earth's rotation relative to Sol more than to a pulsar.
More often than not these issues stem from people trying to roll their own time handling code / int'l address code / i18n / etc rather than using one of the standard (and well-tested) libraries available in their language.
In some cases, the well-tested library is a third-party library that ships with neither the language nor the default install of the operating system. This leads to "I couldn't get the application to start because I couldn't figure out how to follow the instructions to install the required third-party library" or "I couldn't get the application to start because I lack privileges to install the required third-party library." A company may think rolling one's own good enough library is cheaper than fielding these support calls.
Or the well-tested library is either proprietary or copylefted and cannot be lawfully combined with a copylefted or proprietary application respectively. This affected me at work when I was looking for transliteration libraries to make addresses in foreign scripts recognizable to the U.S. Postal Service, but the good one that everyone recommended was GPL (not LGPL), and the boss chose that we roll our own rather than make our own application free software.
You know what else is dead quiet and can handle almost any kind of video? Plex and a $30 android 'stick'.
It cannot handle a webserver, SSH, torrents, print server and NFS file server as the ION board does without breaking a sweat though.
I fail to see how any of those need a GPU. You could try using "Plex and a $30 android 'stick'" for playing video and the ION board for everything else. It's called division of labor.
They managed to fit a barcode scanner into a smartphone. Do you think they can do the same with a ZIP and 5-1/4" slot?
No. But if Square (not Enix) managed to fit a credit card reader into an external device, a Zip drive or floppy drive that connects to the USB OTG port as a mass storage class device shouldn't be too hard.
Modern software and operating systems are written to take advantage of this by heavily making use of multiple threads.
Which is fine if an application uses threads for something other than asynchronous I/O. A lot of applications do all their calculation on one thread, such as Firefox. Game console emulators tend to run single-threaded as well, except perhaps for video scaling and audio resampling, because dedicating one thread to CPU emulation and one thread to GPU emulation would waste too much time waiting for semaphores whenever the CPU and GPU communicate.
Or perhaps the game uses the entire 8 GB of a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One console's RAM and needs 12 GB on PC because Windows 10 is so much heavier than Orbis OS on PS4 or whatever Microsoft calls the XbOne's operating system.
In fact, that's exactly what Sunsoft did for Batman: Return of the Joker for NES. It comes with 8K of Bat-RAM on top of the 4K built into the NES it runs on.
More evidence for the " Wait till it's been out at least a year and it's $20 on Steam before picking it up " argument.
That's a viable tactic, so long as it's not a league-licensed sports game and not from a publisher that likes to shut down the online matchmaking servers after a couple years.
From the linked article: "In 2012, Weather Services International, a sister company to The Weather Channel, announced an agreement to acquire Weather Central." If The Weather Company has acquired Weather Central, doesn't that mean E.L. Rothschild LLC no longer owns it?
And who [places ads on a stream of a Blizzard game other than through Blizzard's approved streaming providers]? Really, who does that?
Nobody I'm aware of, because it would infringe Blizzard's copyright. Perhaps you meant "Really, what reason would there be to do that even if a license to do so were available?"
Apples and oranges.
I'll rephrase without unfortunate implications.
It is possible to discuss who is harmed by a particular policy even if one's own day job is not directly harmed. For example:
If Blizzard and other publishers place limits on through which providers one is allowed to perform their games, and these lists of publishers don't have a well-known publisher in common, this harms anybody who considers producing a video comparing a Blizzard game to those other publishers' games.
The same is true if the publisher of one of the games in the comparison requires that a video featuring its games not feature any other publisher's games. I think we already know which behind-the-times publisher's Creators Program I'm talking about.
harmonization to the copyright term of another established major market
the Free Republic of Liberland [...] would enact a copyright revision extending copyright to 200 years
From the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft: "Nothing before this Court warrants construction of the CTEA’s 20-year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the 'limited Times' constraint." So anyone using the argument of "harmonization" to the copyright term in a recently established micronation or a tiny, less-developed country would have to make it clear that the copyright policy of said other country was not unduly influenced in such an "attempt to evade or override". For one thing, what reasoning prompted this change in Liberland's copyright policy well in excess of Berne? (For comparison, the purported reasoning behind life plus 70 is that an author's children and grandchildren who knew the author personally are in the best position to follow the author's wishes in the work's exploitation.) Is the country even sovereign enough to enter treaties? What's its GDP?
"Thou" was already obsolete in many dialects by the late seventeenth century according to The Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage. Perhaps breaking up the long periodic sentences in old writing might be a better analogy.
Anyway: Copyright in the United States operates not on "sweat of the brow" but on originality. Just as spelling corrections do not confer originality, and color corrections do not confer originality (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), a mechanical replacement of a small number of widely recognized archaisms with their widely recognized contemporary counterparts likely confers very little originality if any. What would more clearly confer originality is modification of other parts of the text to confer the connotations that had been inherent in the T-V distinction or to break up long sentences. But in any case, a competing translation into contemporary English could make different choices of which archaisms to update, how to rearrange sentences, or how to express politeness distinctions, much as translations from Japanese have to represent honorific distinctions.
if an esport was to be broadcast on "regular tv" and not just the internet, professionals would be involved
As I understand Blizzard's policy document, if you're running a subscription stream over the Internet or even including ads over the Internet (other than through YouTube, Twitch, Blip, Own3d, or Ustream), you still need to negotiate a license.
The moment Disney's (Or anyone else's) copyrights are due to expire they'll bribe some congrescritters to extend them again.
The Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was careful to distinguish harmonization to the copyright term of another established major market from the possibility of "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". It allowed the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 because its express purpose was to harmonize to the European Union. In fact, harmonization is the only excuse that the Supreme Court has ever accepted for multiple successive extensions: 1978 harmonized to the Berne Convention, and 1998 harmonized to Europe. So to what established major market would an extension between now and 2025 harmonize?
My point is that copyright law gives video game publishers the power to set restrictive policies. Your point appears to be that most relevant publishers have not chosen to assert restrictive policies, and that their policies can change and have changed. But they can change in both directions.
It turns out Blizzard has a video policy that as of today grants essentially blanket noncommercial rights and specifies when a "content use license" must be negotiated. But it doesn't give any examples of how much such a license is likely to cost or whether the conditions that Blizzard imposes on licensees qualify as a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) regime. Another page implies that a commercial license is not available to individuals: "Blizzard Entertainment® does not enter into licensing agreements with individuals." It also supports the point that policies can change: "we reserve the right to revoke this limited use license at any time, for any reason, and at the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment®." And here's a story from 2015 about Blizzard takedowns. Finally, Blizzard's parent company also publishes Guitar Hero, which contains third-party music to which more restrictive policies have been applied.
But to me, the "sports" ecosystem includes broadcasting the events on subscription or ad-supported television. A blanket noncommercial license does not cover such commercial use. So I'm still confused as to how much an organizer of a video game tournament shown on TV should expect to have to pay for a nonexclusive license to stream each event or what other conditions a promoter will be expected to follow.
It will have to be through a treaty or some other mutli-government agreement.
Under current law, both Mickey and Pooh enter the public domain in the United States in 2024 because their copyrights are anchored in works first published in 1928: Milne's The House at Pooh Corner and the original Disney/Iwerks Mickey trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie). If NAFTA II gets proposed before 2024, watch Disney and Gershwin lobby the USTR to include Mexico's life plus 100 year copyright term in the agreement.
Trademarks do not expire, but they can become no longer distinctive. In Dastar v. Fox (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a trademark cannot be used to restrict derivative works of a work whose copyright has expired. I guess the title and likeness trademarks associated with such a work would be deemed generic.
3) is more likely be producers don't want to pay the going rate and lowballed them with a derisory offer.
If an exclusive license was already sold to another studio, "the going rate" can be tens of billions of dollars to acquire a controlling interest in the exclusive licensee.
The expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the last surviving author died applies in Europe. It also applies in the United States to works of individual authorship first published in 1978 or later. But Buck Rogers was first published before 1978, and U.S. copyright in pre-1978 works follows the rule for works made for hire, expiring 95 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.
Here's a summary of the U.S. copyright term:
Works made for hire by the United States Government: Public domain
Sound recordings first published before 1972: State copyright applies until 2067
Mask works (semiconductor layouts): 10 years
Works published before 1923: Public domain
Works published before 1964 whose copyright was not renewed in the 28th year: Public domain. As I understand the featured article, plaintiff claims that Buck Rogers falls in this category.
Individual works published in 1978-2003 whose last surviving author died before 1978: 2047
Other individual works first published since 1978: 70 years after death of last surviving author
All other works, including works made for hire and works published before 1978: 95 years after first publication
Slashdot Mirror
Scheduling life and work based on a pulsar would need to somehow override the biological tendency of the human body to synchronize its activity cycle to sunlight levels, which are correlated to the earth's rotation relative to Sol more than to a pulsar.
More often than not these issues stem from people trying to roll their own time handling code / int'l address code / i18n / etc rather than using one of the standard (and well-tested) libraries available in their language.
In some cases, the well-tested library is a third-party library that ships with neither the language nor the default install of the operating system. This leads to "I couldn't get the application to start because I couldn't figure out how to follow the instructions to install the required third-party library" or "I couldn't get the application to start because I lack privileges to install the required third-party library." A company may think rolling one's own good enough library is cheaper than fielding these support calls.
Or the well-tested library is either proprietary or copylefted and cannot be lawfully combined with a copylefted or proprietary application respectively. This affected me at work when I was looking for transliteration libraries to make addresses in foreign scripts recognizable to the U.S. Postal Service, but the good one that everyone recommended was GPL (not LGPL), and the boss chose that we roll our own rather than make our own application free software.
You know what else is dead quiet and can handle almost any kind of video? Plex and a $30 android 'stick'.
It cannot handle a webserver, SSH, torrents, print server and NFS file server as the ION board does without breaking a sweat though.
I fail to see how any of those need a GPU. You could try using "Plex and a $30 android 'stick'" for playing video and the ION board for everything else. It's called division of labor.
They managed to fit a barcode scanner into a smartphone. Do you think they can do the same with a ZIP and 5-1/4" slot?
No. But if Square (not Enix) managed to fit a credit card reader into an external device, a Zip drive or floppy drive that connects to the USB OTG port as a mass storage class device shouldn't be too hard.
Most e-readers use eink which isn't backlit and looks just fine in the sun.
True. But in sun or shade, an eink display looks all gray, not like the colorful graphic novel or diagram-heavy textbook you expected.
Some books (art albums) lose all appeal in digital form, unless you throw in free 48-inch Retina display to view them.
Isn't that what the 4K TV fad is for?
Modern software and operating systems are written to take advantage of this by heavily making use of multiple threads.
Which is fine if an application uses threads for something other than asynchronous I/O. A lot of applications do all their calculation on one thread, such as Firefox. Game console emulators tend to run single-threaded as well, except perhaps for video scaling and audio resampling, because dedicating one thread to CPU emulation and one thread to GPU emulation would waste too much time waiting for semaphores whenever the CPU and GPU communicate.
Or perhaps the game uses the entire 8 GB of a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One console's RAM and needs 12 GB on PC because Windows 10 is so much heavier than Orbis OS on PS4 or whatever Microsoft calls the XbOne's operating system.
buy his own damn Bat-RAM.
In fact, that's exactly what Sunsoft did for Batman: Return of the Joker for NES. It comes with 8K of Bat-RAM on top of the 4K built into the NES it runs on.
More evidence for the " Wait till it's been out at least a year and it's $20 on Steam before picking it up " argument.
That's a viable tactic, so long as it's not a league-licensed sports game and not from a publisher that likes to shut down the online matchmaking servers after a couple years.
From the linked article: "In 2012, Weather Services International, a sister company to The Weather Channel, announced an agreement to acquire Weather Central." If The Weather Company has acquired Weather Central, doesn't that mean E.L. Rothschild LLC no longer owns it?
The article you linked mentions Weather Central, which is not The Weather Company. The Weather Company is owned by Blackstone, Bain, and NBCUniversal.
And who [places ads on a stream of a Blizzard game other than through Blizzard's approved streaming providers]? Really, who does that?
Nobody I'm aware of, because it would infringe Blizzard's copyright. Perhaps you meant "Really, what reason would there be to do that even if a license to do so were available?"
Apples and oranges.
I'll rephrase without unfortunate implications.
It is possible to discuss who is harmed by a particular policy even if one's own day job is not directly harmed. For example:
harmonization to the copyright term of another established major market
the Free Republic of Liberland [...] would enact a copyright revision extending copyright to 200 years
From the opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft: "Nothing before this Court warrants construction of the CTEA’s 20-year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the 'limited Times' constraint." So anyone using the argument of "harmonization" to the copyright term in a recently established micronation or a tiny, less-developed country would have to make it clear that the copyright policy of said other country was not unduly influenced in such an "attempt to evade or override". For one thing, what reasoning prompted this change in Liberland's copyright policy well in excess of Berne? (For comparison, the purported reasoning behind life plus 70 is that an author's children and grandchildren who knew the author personally are in the best position to follow the author's wishes in the work's exploitation.) Is the country even sovereign enough to enter treaties? What's its GDP?
"Thou" was already obsolete in many dialects by the late seventeenth century according to The Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage. Perhaps breaking up the long periodic sentences in old writing might be a better analogy.
Anyway: Copyright in the United States operates not on "sweat of the brow" but on originality. Just as spelling corrections do not confer originality, and color corrections do not confer originality (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), a mechanical replacement of a small number of widely recognized archaisms with their widely recognized contemporary counterparts likely confers very little originality if any. What would more clearly confer originality is modification of other parts of the text to confer the connotations that had been inherent in the T-V distinction or to break up long sentences. But in any case, a competing translation into contemporary English could make different choices of which archaisms to update, how to rearrange sentences, or how to express politeness distinctions, much as translations from Japanese have to represent honorific distinctions.
if an esport was to be broadcast on "regular tv" and not just the internet, professionals would be involved
As I understand Blizzard's policy document, if you're running a subscription stream over the Internet or even including ads over the Internet (other than through YouTube, Twitch, Blip, Own3d, or Ustream), you still need to negotiate a license.
Not...Your....Concern.
"First they came..."
The copyright term in the leaked final TPP is life plus 70, no increase over the present U.S. term.
The moment Disney's (Or anyone else's) copyrights are due to expire they'll bribe some congrescritters to extend them again.
The Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was careful to distinguish harmonization to the copyright term of another established major market from the possibility of "perpetual copyright on the installment plan". It allowed the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 because its express purpose was to harmonize to the European Union. In fact, harmonization is the only excuse that the Supreme Court has ever accepted for multiple successive extensions: 1978 harmonized to the Berne Convention, and 1998 harmonized to Europe. So to what established major market would an extension between now and 2025 harmonize?
My point is that copyright law gives video game publishers the power to set restrictive policies. Your point appears to be that most relevant publishers have not chosen to assert restrictive policies, and that their policies can change and have changed. But they can change in both directions.
It turns out Blizzard has a video policy that as of today grants essentially blanket noncommercial rights and specifies when a "content use license" must be negotiated. But it doesn't give any examples of how much such a license is likely to cost or whether the conditions that Blizzard imposes on licensees qualify as a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) regime. Another page implies that a commercial license is not available to individuals: "Blizzard Entertainment® does not enter into licensing agreements with individuals." It also supports the point that policies can change: "we reserve the right to revoke this limited use license at any time, for any reason, and at the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment®." And here's a story from 2015 about Blizzard takedowns. Finally, Blizzard's parent company also publishes Guitar Hero, which contains third-party music to which more restrictive policies have been applied.
A post by a moderator implies that Capcom also grants blanket noncommercial rights. In fact, both Blizzard and Capcom have announced that they are working with the noncommercial YouTube community to resolve copyright strikes.
But to me, the "sports" ecosystem includes broadcasting the events on subscription or ad-supported television. A blanket noncommercial license does not cover such commercial use. So I'm still confused as to how much an organizer of a video game tournament shown on TV should expect to have to pay for a nonexclusive license to stream each event or what other conditions a promoter will be expected to follow.
(after a bit of research)
I guess today I learned a head cold can block Eustachian tubes in some patients.
It will have to be through a treaty or some other mutli-government agreement.
Under current law, both Mickey and Pooh enter the public domain in the United States in 2024 because their copyrights are anchored in works first published in 1928: Milne's The House at Pooh Corner and the original Disney/Iwerks Mickey trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie). If NAFTA II gets proposed before 2024, watch Disney and Gershwin lobby the USTR to include Mexico's life plus 100 year copyright term in the agreement.
the trademark does not expire
Trademarks do not expire, but they can become no longer distinctive. In Dastar v. Fox (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a trademark cannot be used to restrict derivative works of a work whose copyright has expired. I guess the title and likeness trademarks associated with such a work would be deemed generic.
3) is more likely be producers don't want to pay the going rate and lowballed them with a derisory offer.
If an exclusive license was already sold to another studio, "the going rate" can be tens of billions of dollars to acquire a controlling interest in the exclusive licensee.
Disney might lose the copyright of the Mickey Mouse character, but they would still have a trademark restricting others from marketing said character.
A U.S. trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright. Dastar v. Fox.
The expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the last surviving author died applies in Europe. It also applies in the United States to works of individual authorship first published in 1978 or later. But Buck Rogers was first published before 1978, and U.S. copyright in pre-1978 works follows the rule for works made for hire, expiring 95 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.
Here's a summary of the U.S. copyright term: