Yeah, noticed that after posting. For some reason the parent wasn't displaying for me so got the context of your post a bit off. Sorry about that. And I agree on your factors there.
Playing Devil's advocate... poorly mind you but I'll try... why would a non-infringing use be a defense? If we allow that any tool with a legal use should therefore be legal you can get to equal absurdities (that dirty bomb in my garage, I'm using it for a doorstop). We really can't look at this in binary good bad mode. Basically every device can put to neutral or good use, and bad use, so that you can potentially use it legitimately in itself isn't a real defense.
While they did circumvent a defensive measure, they didn't make a copy of it. This is a matter of a contractual violation (assuming it is even that, I'm no lawyer so...). They paid for said software use for a period of time, and are going beyond that allowed period of time.
I highly suspect this is just bluster on the part of the airlines to get some free money. They know darn well that it would be monstrously stupid to fly in these conditions, and even if you didn't have a major accident, the planes would be damaged just from the dust effectively sand blasting the aircraft and playing havoc with the innards of the engines.
While true, the general issue is that there are only so many ways to go about doing X. Further there are only so many of those that are good ways among those, and even fewer still that students are taught about. When you then compare against both the net and all previous solutions, the odds of a match coming up greatly increases. At a certain point, particularly when we're dealing with introductory courses, you have to ask, are these true or false positives. I know at my work, I rarely can tell if it was me or someone else who coded something originally because the code structure is just that tight that you won't see much variation.
I find some projects I can just tear into and code like a mad man. Others are painfully dull slogs and I just can't seem to focus much on them. There is also a lot of the time I'll spend hours looking at a problem and just can't seem to make any progress on it because I'm just not grasping it. So, I can easily vary from about 40+ hours one of those mad man rushes, to much more painful 15 or so if I hit one of those troublesome problems.
All too true. I still remember seeing an ad for a programmer that asked for 5 years of Java experience... when Java was 3 and a bit years old. I suppose they might have been looking for some deep insider from Sun or something, but really...
And if there is any justice in this world, God will smack him upside the head, call him an idiot, and send him back to Earth to be reborn to an unwed 14 year old mother.
One the prime reasons that cyber bullying is of particular focus now is that you simply can't escape it. The old style 'give me your lunch money' bully had very little presence at home. If said bully did try to take it home, it was generally in ways that annoyed the parents just as much as the kid (crank calls and the like), which often lead to more action on their part. Now, cyber bullying allows them to hit you even at home, and in ways that can often go unnoticed by the parents, not only of the victim, but of the bully's parents. Not sure what we can do about it, but I wouldn't equate this to a typical school yard bullying situation.
I wonder that myself. Short of something criminal, which the School should not be involved in punishing, what exactly could the school possibly have authority over in a person's home?
This goes a long way toward making sure I will. I can understand some level of online authentication, but this is absurd. Then again, what am I think, I won't even buy these games. Not worth the hassle.
There is a big difference between a publisher and a developer. There aren't that many publishers out there, less than 20, so that could mean as little as 14-16 games. By contrast, if he said developers, there are lots of those...
And, as usual, CEA doesn't realize this will not help them in the long run. All they do with this guy of BS is irritate the very companies they want to court, making them that much more prone to saying 'F it' and either skipping the event entirely, or using completely separate events to hock their wares.
Not really. All that would show is that it is not genetically determined. However, there are many things that are very real but are not defined genetically (and all of that assumes the women are actually correct in knowing the spot, which is also not a safe assumption).
I highly suspect Apple will soon pull out their patent portfolio and this will quickly turn into a total mess. Oh well, bound to happen sooner or later.
Of course the impulsive child in me is all thumbs and fingers and even a few toes up for this. However, in the long haul I have to question how far you'll get on this kind of content. There is a lot of games that can certainly teach things, but they only have so much to teach and then they're just a game. I suppose, at the very least, it will be an interesting experiment, just not so sure I'd want to be the parent of the kids participating in said experiment.
Didn't know that, so maybe we can kill it on the Xerox grounds, that they simply haven't properly defended it. Although, sounds a lot like it probably shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
You can trademark sounds, and I kinda agree with that in principle. However, a trademark cannot be functional, and this is where things go questionable. The duck calls aren't being used in any particular way that screams function in this particular case (there are no actual ducks involved, only the vehicles happen to be called that), but one could argue that they are functional as a part of the entertainment value of the ride. On the other side, I could easily see this as confusing the brand name of the particular operator.
Hmmm, this is tough, I really don't know who to side with in this case. It seems so silly that my impulse is to say the case should be tossed out, but by the same token, I feel the copy cats are being deliberately too copy cat-ish for my taste so I'm not for siding with them, and there is enough merit that it might be a legit case. However, again on the other side, I'm thinking how stupid this could get as some customer, of his own accord, brings a duck call aboard and uses it and that again we could have a dicey legal matter. Okay, where is my coin...
I mean seriously, when you pull stunts like this, barring even the other view from being fielded, how in the hell do you expect us to take you seriously? This kind of thing disgusts me. I'm actually for copyright and protections and the like, but every time they do this kind of thing I lose that much more of my support for their position as they are obviously not even trying to be reasonable.
As to the MP and students distributing the flier, good job. The other side has to be heard. Don't let these guys get away with this BS. And don't even think about apologizing. They are the ones that should be apologizing to you. They obviously aren't interested in real discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, noticed that after posting. For some reason the parent wasn't displaying for me so got the context of your post a bit off. Sorry about that. And I agree on your factors there.
Playing Devil's advocate... poorly mind you but I'll try... why would a non-infringing use be a defense? If we allow that any tool with a legal use should therefore be legal you can get to equal absurdities (that dirty bomb in my garage, I'm using it for a doorstop). We really can't look at this in binary good bad mode. Basically every device can put to neutral or good use, and bad use, so that you can potentially use it legitimately in itself isn't a real defense.
While they did circumvent a defensive measure, they didn't make a copy of it. This is a matter of a contractual violation (assuming it is even that, I'm no lawyer so...). They paid for said software use for a period of time, and are going beyond that allowed period of time.
So basically it comes down to 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. I love politics.
I highly suspect this is just bluster on the part of the airlines to get some free money. They know darn well that it would be monstrously stupid to fly in these conditions, and even if you didn't have a major accident, the planes would be damaged just from the dust effectively sand blasting the aircraft and playing havoc with the innards of the engines.
While true, the general issue is that there are only so many ways to go about doing X. Further there are only so many of those that are good ways among those, and even fewer still that students are taught about. When you then compare against both the net and all previous solutions, the odds of a match coming up greatly increases. At a certain point, particularly when we're dealing with introductory courses, you have to ask, are these true or false positives. I know at my work, I rarely can tell if it was me or someone else who coded something originally because the code structure is just that tight that you won't see much variation.
I find some projects I can just tear into and code like a mad man. Others are painfully dull slogs and I just can't seem to focus much on them. There is also a lot of the time I'll spend hours looking at a problem and just can't seem to make any progress on it because I'm just not grasping it. So, I can easily vary from about 40+ hours one of those mad man rushes, to much more painful 15 or so if I hit one of those troublesome problems.
All too true. I still remember seeing an ad for a programmer that asked for 5 years of Java experience... when Java was 3 and a bit years old. I suppose they might have been looking for some deep insider from Sun or something, but really...
And if there is any justice in this world, God will smack him upside the head, call him an idiot, and send him back to Earth to be reborn to an unwed 14 year old mother.
"The new law continues to let parents remove their children from sex-ed classes, and schools can also not offer such instruction."
If you RTA, you will see it IS voluntary. Schools need not do it, and you can have your kid not attend it if they do.
I mean, if you got issue with the law, then take it to the law makers. Don't take it out on the freaking teachers.
One the prime reasons that cyber bullying is of particular focus now is that you simply can't escape it. The old style 'give me your lunch money' bully had very little presence at home. If said bully did try to take it home, it was generally in ways that annoyed the parents just as much as the kid (crank calls and the like), which often lead to more action on their part. Now, cyber bullying allows them to hit you even at home, and in ways that can often go unnoticed by the parents, not only of the victim, but of the bully's parents. Not sure what we can do about it, but I wouldn't equate this to a typical school yard bullying situation.
I wonder that myself. Short of something criminal, which the School should not be involved in punishing, what exactly could the school possibly have authority over in a person's home?
This goes a long way toward making sure I will. I can understand some level of online authentication, but this is absurd. Then again, what am I think, I won't even buy these games. Not worth the hassle.
There is a big difference between a publisher and a developer. There aren't that many publishers out there, less than 20, so that could mean as little as 14-16 games. By contrast, if he said developers, there are lots of those...
And, as usual, CEA doesn't realize this will not help them in the long run. All they do with this guy of BS is irritate the very companies they want to court, making them that much more prone to saying 'F it' and either skipping the event entirely, or using completely separate events to hock their wares.
Not really. All that would show is that it is not genetically determined. However, there are many things that are very real but are not defined genetically (and all of that assumes the women are actually correct in knowing the spot, which is also not a safe assumption).
I highly suspect Apple will soon pull out their patent portfolio and this will quickly turn into a total mess. Oh well, bound to happen sooner or later.
Not that I mind a bit of ripping off, but I wouldn't call it new.
Of course the impulsive child in me is all thumbs and fingers and even a few toes up for this. However, in the long haul I have to question how far you'll get on this kind of content. There is a lot of games that can certainly teach things, but they only have so much to teach and then they're just a game. I suppose, at the very least, it will be an interesting experiment, just not so sure I'd want to be the parent of the kids participating in said experiment.
Don't get me wrong, I feel the statement is fine and all that, just strikes me as weird to put those two concepts together.
Didn't know that, so maybe we can kill it on the Xerox grounds, that they simply haven't properly defended it. Although, sounds a lot like it probably shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
You can trademark sounds, and I kinda agree with that in principle. However, a trademark cannot be functional, and this is where things go questionable. The duck calls aren't being used in any particular way that screams function in this particular case (there are no actual ducks involved, only the vehicles happen to be called that), but one could argue that they are functional as a part of the entertainment value of the ride. On the other side, I could easily see this as confusing the brand name of the particular operator.
Hmmm, this is tough, I really don't know who to side with in this case. It seems so silly that my impulse is to say the case should be tossed out, but by the same token, I feel the copy cats are being deliberately too copy cat-ish for my taste so I'm not for siding with them, and there is enough merit that it might be a legit case. However, again on the other side, I'm thinking how stupid this could get as some customer, of his own accord, brings a duck call aboard and uses it and that again we could have a dicey legal matter. Okay, where is my coin...
I mean seriously, when you pull stunts like this, barring even the other view from being fielded, how in the hell do you expect us to take you seriously? This kind of thing disgusts me. I'm actually for copyright and protections and the like, but every time they do this kind of thing I lose that much more of my support for their position as they are obviously not even trying to be reasonable.
As to the MP and students distributing the flier, good job. The other side has to be heard. Don't let these guys get away with this BS. And don't even think about apologizing. They are the ones that should be apologizing to you. They obviously aren't interested in real discussion.