Product reviews easily fall under fair use. Strategy guides are more of a grey area, something this suit will address.
These independent companies need to be able to criticise and contradict the companies they cover, without fear of being sued for copyright and other infringements.
I don't know what strategy guides you've been reading. Reviews are where you do the things you mentioned, not strategy guides.
It's also artwork from the games, and the trading cards.
Now, think of it this way: Nintendo lisences other publishing companies to make strategy guides. These companies in turn pay a sum to be able to use Nintendo's intellectual property. This other company does not.
Where does that leave Nintendo? This company is using their IP to cut into their profits.
They have a legitamite case. I don't think I want them to win, but it is a legitamite case. Fair use is most often applicable to reviews and parodies, not making a product about the copyrighted material in question.
If you want to read the actual suit, it's here in gif format.
Oh, and this is a straight-forward copyright/trademark case, no EULAs involved at all. Console games don't have EULAs.
Let me explain to you how this works. If you make a claim, you back it up. If you're going to say things that you're purporting as fact, you should use sources. Just because this is a movie review doesn't exempt you from basic accountability.
And there is a difference between more nukes and the liklihood of them being used. That period was the closest this country has come to getting into a nuclear exchange, much more than what's going on now. It was a standoff. We haven't had a situation like that since.
You're a journalist. Use sources.
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 1
Ironic that nuclear bombs are much more likely to go off today than 30 years ago, but pols don't worry about it much.
This begs the question why use C? I have nothing against C, but I like to use the right tools for the job. I hate having to force things. If it's easier to write OO code in C++, why write it in C?
Anytime one find themselves having to write workarounds, they should sit back and ask themselves this: If that's what I want to do, and this tool won't let me do it easily, why am I using this tool?
It's easier for me to think about. When I think in procedural code, things get out of hand in my mind and the interconnectins betweens sections of code gets garbled. When I think in terms of objects, things are clearer in my head, and it's easier to fit the pieces together.
People can go on and on about why one is better than the other, but if one is more natural for me to use, it's better for me. And that's what counts.
Sorry, but in a winner takes all system with more than two candidates, you can't just vote for who you want. I voted for Nader. I hated Bush, and would rather have Gore than Bush. I only went for Nader because I knew my state always went Republican, and that my vote would go better towards getting Nader that 5% (which he didn't get).
But if that had not been the case, I'm not sure what I would have done. It's not as simple as picking who you like the best.
If a kid in school says anything along the lines of "I want to kill you" to either a nother student or a teacher, even if everyone understands they're joking, they can get in trouble. A lot of trouble.
Mod this up. He pointed out with examples something I was thinking about when I read the article: Yes, a lot of programmer's time is likely spent not writing "useful" code, but the same can probably go for any other profession.
That said, I do think most programs have too many features. They all want to make your friggin coffee in the morning when I just want them to do a simple task.
Ummm... Castlevania Symphony of the Night was released Fall of '97 (or '98, not quite sure), for the PlayStation. You're probably thinking about the Dreamcast one, can't remember the title.
More states went for Bush. So? I really don't care about the invidiviual states that went for a candidate, I care about the individual voters. Especially since some states are almost always going to go one way (the state I live in, for instance, always goes Republican). If you look at the states, you lose the very large number of people who might have gone the other way.
Point to ponder: do you think any president would pay attention to, for instance, the black population if there were no electoral college? They are a very small minority when taking the nation as a whole, but if you ignore them you likely lose support from many Southern states.
That make just about no sense. Generally, blacks vote Democratic. Not always, but generally. Generally, southern states go Republican. Not always, but generally.
How does the electoral college force candidates to pay attention to any minority more than a popular vote would? I certainly can't see a reason for that to be so.
I don't think the people in this nation are homogenous enough to warrant the removal of the latter, and I don't think that a true democracy is more effective than an elected republic.
Can we say "red herring"? That has no relevance to whether or not the electoral college should stick around. Voting a president in by popular vote instead of the electoral college is still a republic, since the president is in essence representing us, and there's still that little thing called Congress.
"If one were to look at a map of the United States, one would see that Bush won the support of the majority of the nation, while Gore won several pockets of large population. If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates could campaign only in these pockets of people, and win the office of the presidency even though the majority of states supported a different candidate."
That makes little sense, seeing as how with the electoral college, they already do campaign in only certain areas. You don't see many presidential hopefuls chumming it up in Alaska or Rhode Island with a small number of electoral votes. They're in the states that can swing an election, like California, Florida, or Pennsylvania.
You say two very odd things: Bush won the majority of the nation, while Gore won small pockets of large population. Newsflash buddy, but those "small pockets of large population," other than being an oxymoron, is the nation. Saying that Bush won the nation just because he happened to get more votes in certain states is silly. The nation is comprised of people. More people voted for Gore.
You say to look at a map, but that is also silly, since the size of a state doesn't mean there are a lot of people in it.
Every other office in this country that is voted for does not use this silly system, there's no reason that the presidential election needs to use it. There is no need for it. It was initally established because those who set up the system didn't trust the people to elect their own president, but they did trust them to elect someone they trusted. The general population has access to enough information about a candidate that I think they can decide for themselves. For 110 years it was nothing but a formaltiy, but now it's actually causing problems. Just scrap the whole system while there's momentum to do it.
Umm... right. May want to tell that to Newton, Ampere, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein (he published his special theory of relativity in 1905) and many, many others.
Physics as we know it today really started with Netwon, who lived from 1642-1727, well more than 50 to 75 years. It was an "actual science."
Absentee voting is not only legal, it is encouraged. It's rather simple. You send an absentee ballot to the county of your legal address, get a voting ballot in the mail, fill it out, get a witness to sign it, and send it in. I may spend more time at college than I do at home, but my legal adress is not here, it's home.
Slashdot Mirror
Filtering software is a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist.
- These independent companies need to be able to criticise and contradict the companies they cover, without fear of being sued for copyright and other infringements.
I don't know what strategy guides you've been reading. Reviews are where you do the things you mentioned, not strategy guides.Now, think of it this way: Nintendo lisences other publishing companies to make strategy guides. These companies in turn pay a sum to be able to use Nintendo's intellectual property. This other company does not.
Where does that leave Nintendo? This company is using their IP to cut into their profits.
They have a legitamite case. I don't think I want them to win, but it is a legitamite case. Fair use is most often applicable to reviews and parodies, not making a product about the copyrighted material in question.
If you want to read the actual suit, it's here in gif format.
Oh, and this is a straight-forward copyright/trademark case, no EULAs involved at all. Console games don't have EULAs.
Sure there's no obligation to provide sources. Assuming he doesn't mind if people don't take what he writes seriously.
And there is a difference between more nukes and the liklihood of them being used. That period was the closest this country has come to getting into a nuclear exchange, much more than what's going on now. It was a standoff. We haven't had a situation like that since.
According to whom?
Anytime one find themselves having to write workarounds, they should sit back and ask themselves this: If that's what I want to do, and this tool won't let me do it easily, why am I using this tool?
People can go on and on about why one is better than the other, but if one is more natural for me to use, it's better for me. And that's what counts.
But if that had not been the case, I'm not sure what I would have done. It's not as simple as picking who you like the best.
But if a teacher cracks a joke, it's just a joke.
Good thing I got that straight.
Interesting text, but it does make one base assumption that isn't always true: punishment is a deterent for crime.
He's right. I had no idea that's what the movie was about when I went to see it. And that made it all that much better.
That said, I do think most programs have too many features. They all want to make your friggin coffee in the morning when I just want them to do a simple task.
Ummm... Castlevania Symphony of the Night was released Fall of '97 (or '98, not quite sure), for the PlayStation. You're probably thinking about the Dreamcast one, can't remember the title.
Ligthen up.
Point to ponder: do you think any president would pay attention to, for instance, the black population if there were no electoral college? They are a very small minority when taking the nation as a whole, but if you ignore them you likely lose support from many Southern states.
That make just about no sense. Generally, blacks vote Democratic. Not always, but generally. Generally, southern states go Republican. Not always, but generally.
How does the electoral college force candidates to pay attention to any minority more than a popular vote would? I certainly can't see a reason for that to be so.
I don't think the people in this nation are homogenous enough to warrant the removal of the latter, and I don't think that a true democracy is more effective than an elected republic.
Can we say "red herring"? That has no relevance to whether or not the electoral college should stick around. Voting a president in by popular vote instead of the electoral college is still a republic, since the president is in essence representing us, and there's still that little thing called Congress.
Service and games, if I recall correctly.
I'd really like to know who modded this down and why.
That makes little sense, seeing as how with the electoral college, they already do campaign in only certain areas. You don't see many presidential hopefuls chumming it up in Alaska or Rhode Island with a small number of electoral votes. They're in the states that can swing an election, like California, Florida, or Pennsylvania.
You say two very odd things: Bush won the majority of the nation, while Gore won small pockets of large population. Newsflash buddy, but those "small pockets of large population," other than being an oxymoron, is the nation. Saying that Bush won the nation just because he happened to get more votes in certain states is silly. The nation is comprised of people. More people voted for Gore.
You say to look at a map, but that is also silly, since the size of a state doesn't mean there are a lot of people in it.
Every other office in this country that is voted for does not use this silly system, there's no reason that the presidential election needs to use it. There is no need for it. It was initally established because those who set up the system didn't trust the people to elect their own president, but they did trust them to elect someone they trusted. The general population has access to enough information about a candidate that I think they can decide for themselves. For 110 years it was nothing but a formaltiy, but now it's actually causing problems. Just scrap the whole system while there's momentum to do it.
I guess you didn't get the implied statement. "Red Planet pretends to be scientificaly accurrate. The Matrix does not."
I was quoting the person who wrote the review.
And posting on slashdot is solving world hunger.
Red Planet pretends to be scientificaly accurate. The point of The Matrix is that this is not reality. Very different perspectives.
Physics as we know it today really started with Netwon, who lived from 1642-1727, well more than 50 to 75 years. It was an "actual science."
I should know, seeing as how that's what I did.