Re:Done in by the people who would buy this stuff
on
Buy a Piece of Acclaim
·
· Score: 1
I said that the line "should be drawn" more toward allowing personal use, not that it currently -is- there. I'm well aware of the current regulations, and I advocate changing them.
Least they listen every once in a while. Still, it's good to see that at least ONE agency remembers that the people are supposed to run the government, not the other way around.
Re:Done in by the people who would buy this stuff
on
Buy a Piece of Acclaim
·
· Score: 1
I don't see piracy "doing in" the movie, music, or software industry (all of whose revenues are UP despite all their yowling about piracy and alienation of their customers in futile efforts to prevent it.) What I DO see is a WHOLE lot of garbage coming out of the IP industries, along with a few gems. If I want to download something in order to try it out before I drop ($15 on a CD, ~$25 on a DVD, or ~$50 on a game), I reserve the right to do so. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, I saved myself being ripped off.
I really see no problem with this. It is theft for a record company to put 1 or 2 decent songs on a CD (which, incidentally, holds about 80 minutes worth of music, as we all well know, and sometimes -contains- less than 50...). It is theft to put more effort into keeping people from playing your game than making one that they would want to and then refusing to refund the customer's money when they find that out. It is theft when I move and my DVD collection which I perfectly legally purchased becomes worthless.
Check your argument if you would please, this area has a lot more gray in it then most believe.
As for Acclaim, I wouldn't have even bothered downloading a "preview" copy of their games, they haven't made a worthwhile one in quite some time. It would've been a waste of my time. I knew that, so look at that, I didn't buy their games!
It's amazing that these companies are so arrogant as to think that locking up people's bought-and-paid-for property is acceptable. If Toyota asked us to "authenticate" our car every time we started it there would be a Toyota for all of five seconds. If I purchase a CD, game, or movie, that copy is MY property. Granted, I have no right to make copies and exploit them commercially, but to say that I cannot give one to a friend?
Personal use is different than commercial. If I put on a concert using someone else's music, and make a killing on it, this is and should be illegal. If, on the other hand, I put in a CD on in my car and everyone riding along enjoys it, this is perfectly legal, even if only one of us owns the disc. The distinction here is personal vs. commercial exploitation. That distinction is a good, valid one, and the line should be drawn far more brightly, and far closer toward expanding, not shrinking, fair use rights.
The judge can (and in cases like this should) order that sensitive portions of the proceedings, such as trade secrets, be redacted from the transcripts, while still releasing the transcripts of the proceedings and arguments.
I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'
When someone decides to file a lawsuit in a public court of law, the public then has EVERY right to know what transpired during that case, for several reasons:
1. Public faith and confidence in court proceedings cannot exist if the courts do not operate openly, allowing and inviting scrutiny of their performance.
2. Fairness in the courts cannot be assured except by the same methods listed above. Closed systems invite corruption, while open systems quickly and efficently expose it.
You have a right to privacy if you are at home in your living room, not if you make a conscious decision to go into a public arena such as a courtroom. Your "right to privacy" doesn't extend to kicking me off the bus because you want to be "in private" on it.
However, the legislation signed by Gov. Rendell gives phone companies the right to deny municipalities the ability to deploy their own networks, which could hinder the deployment of Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.
Most states have "home-rule" regulations for cities regulating just how far the state may exercise its authorities, much as the federal government has precedence but not unlimited authority over the states. I wonder if giving the veto power to the companies, rather than vesting it in the state or a state agency, might run afoul of this?
IANAL, but it was just something that came to mind.
No redirection was acceptable on Telstra's part, period, whether it's a "disclaimer" or anything else. Their job is to route net traffic where the -user- tells it to go, not to try and determine if that user (for any reason, their fault or someone else's) is "mistaken". Why not just contact the owner of the porn site, explain to them the mistake, and ask them to put up a front page explaining it?
If the owner/admin of the porn site is not amenable to this idea or unreachable, well then, it's not the ISP's job to redirect its customers' traffic. If anything, why not send an email to all their subscribers explaining the screwup? There are FAR less invasive ways to accomplish their aim, and what they did was wrong, period.
Each serves their purpose. If I need to speak to someone interactively and immediately, IM is generally a better choice. On the other hand, if I want to send a good bit of information to someone that they're likely going to want to refer back to, or they're not online when I think of something I need to tell them, email is a much better alternative.
I quite like the way gmail is set up, and that is certainly done well to support a "conversational" format. I don't see why this persistent need in the tech community that one tool is always and for everything better than another. It seems pretty frequent though (Windows vs. Linux vs. *BSD vs. Solaris, email vs. IM, blogs vs. newsgroups, I could go on but I'd fill up the server.)
Why doesn't anyone acknowledge that, quite like in reality, software is a tool, and one type of tool is generally better at a given job then another? You don't use a hammer to loosen a nut, nor a wrench to drive a nail, and you wouldn't want to be stuck without either when the need arises.
However, it would take a lot of $1000 robots getting blown up before you could justify one of the higher-priced ones...presumably they get humans out of the area first? (Of course, in situations that that wouldn't be possible, you would still require the one with the highest probability of success, but for your average poking at garbage piles to see if they blow up this seems to make sense.)
If, as I understand it, the robots would be brought down and destroyed after the mission anyway, why couldn't NASA get some more use out of them?
Put cameras on them with a feed to Earth, this is not that hard to do. Have the two robots slug it out in orbit over the Pacific, maybe with the moon as a backdrop, and drop 'em into the Pacific after that.
It probably strikes as a bit off-the-wall, but could have several benefits...the sale of advertising during the program could pay a decent bit of the bill, and hey, we need to do SOMETHING to get people aware that yes, there actually is something out there past the atmosphere. Might raise support for funding in several ways...for one, not needing so much of it (the advertisers), and for another, raising public awareness.
Yes, I'm advocating a publicity stunt. That's what seems to get people's attention.
Actually, that applies to -any- telemarketing calls, previous relationship or not. Ask them to stop calling and add you to their "do-not call" list. If you do this, it's illegal for them to call you again, period, landline or cell.
Well, for future reference, I'm a liberal, social democrat, and I don't consider the word "liberal" to be a curse. And no, I didn't grow up in Massachusetts or California, Colorado actually. However, I still have no idea if the regulations are good or bad, since I haven't looked at them in depth for myself.
Nowhere in it did I say that the -current- regulations are a great idea, I haven't even seen them in detail, and they would be changed quite a bit by the realities of life on Mars in any case.
What I did say was that I'm glad to see the thought process starting right now, instead of 5 years after it's already started happening.
Slashdot Mirror
I said that the line "should be drawn" more toward allowing personal use, not that it currently -is- there. I'm well aware of the current regulations, and I advocate changing them.
Least they listen every once in a while. Still, it's good to see that at least ONE agency remembers that the people are supposed to run the government, not the other way around.
I don't see piracy "doing in" the movie, music, or software industry (all of whose revenues are UP despite all their yowling about piracy and alienation of their customers in futile efforts to prevent it.) What I DO see is a WHOLE lot of garbage coming out of the IP industries, along with a few gems. If I want to download something in order to try it out before I drop ($15 on a CD, ~$25 on a DVD, or ~$50 on a game), I reserve the right to do so. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, I saved myself being ripped off.
I really see no problem with this. It is theft for a record company to put 1 or 2 decent songs on a CD (which, incidentally, holds about 80 minutes worth of music, as we all well know, and sometimes -contains- less than 50...). It is theft to put more effort into keeping people from playing your game than making one that they would want to and then refusing to refund the customer's money when they find that out. It is theft when I move and my DVD collection which I perfectly legally purchased becomes worthless.
Check your argument if you would please, this area has a lot more gray in it then most believe.
As for Acclaim, I wouldn't have even bothered downloading a "preview" copy of their games, they haven't made a worthwhile one in quite some time. It would've been a waste of my time. I knew that, so look at that, I didn't buy their games!
It's amazing that these companies are so arrogant as to think that locking up people's bought-and-paid-for property is acceptable. If Toyota asked us to "authenticate" our car every time we started it there would be a Toyota for all of five seconds. If I purchase a CD, game, or movie, that copy is MY property. Granted, I have no right to make copies and exploit them commercially, but to say that I cannot give one to a friend?
Personal use is different than commercial. If I put on a concert using someone else's music, and make a killing on it, this is and should be illegal. If, on the other hand, I put in a CD on in my car and everyone riding along enjoys it, this is perfectly legal, even if only one of us owns the disc. The distinction here is personal vs. commercial exploitation. That distinction is a good, valid one, and the line should be drawn far more brightly, and far closer toward expanding, not shrinking, fair use rights.
The judge can (and in cases like this should) order that sensitive portions of the proceedings, such as trade secrets, be redacted from the transcripts, while still releasing the transcripts of the proceedings and arguments.
1984 huh...what an appropriate year for this subject!
Machine sounds are the only ones in SENTRI's vocabulary. It cannot eavesdrop on conversations, the scientist emphasized.
...because we're not done coding that yet, you've got at least another few years.
I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'
When someone decides to file a lawsuit in a public court of law, the public then has EVERY right to know what transpired during that case, for several reasons:
1. Public faith and confidence in court proceedings cannot exist if the courts do not operate openly, allowing and inviting scrutiny of their performance.
2. Fairness in the courts cannot be assured except by the same methods listed above. Closed systems invite corruption, while open systems quickly and efficently expose it.
You have a right to privacy if you are at home in your living room, not if you make a conscious decision to go into a public arena such as a courtroom. Your "right to privacy" doesn't extend to kicking me off the bus because you want to be "in private" on it.
However, the legislation signed by Gov. Rendell gives phone companies the right to deny municipalities the ability to deploy their own networks, which could hinder the deployment of Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.
Most states have "home-rule" regulations for cities regulating just how far the state may exercise its authorities, much as the federal government has precedence but not unlimited authority over the states. I wonder if giving the veto power to the companies, rather than vesting it in the state or a state agency, might run afoul of this?
IANAL, but it was just something that came to mind.
...as expressed by its founders, is "Don't be evil." I would sure like to hear them explain how this fits in with that, if it is indeed true.
Didn't anyone learn from Sony's spectacular failure that people will not buy DRM-crippled crap?
Why couldn't the school that a student transfers -to- simply put "transferred from" and the school they came from?
Subtract the total number of "transferred from's" in a given year from the number of "dropped out", and you have the true number of dropouts.
This requires personally-identifiable rather than aggregate statistics because...?
No redirection was acceptable on Telstra's part, period, whether it's a "disclaimer" or anything else. Their job is to route net traffic where the -user- tells it to go, not to try and determine if that user (for any reason, their fault or someone else's) is "mistaken". Why not just contact the owner of the porn site, explain to them the mistake, and ask them to put up a front page explaining it?
If the owner/admin of the porn site is not amenable to this idea or unreachable, well then, it's not the ISP's job to redirect its customers' traffic. If anything, why not send an email to all their subscribers explaining the screwup? There are FAR less invasive ways to accomplish their aim, and what they did was wrong, period.
No, the DMCA would prohibit that. Thank your Congressman today!
And while we're at it, we can mod you down for thin skin and lacking a sense of humor.
Each serves their purpose. If I need to speak to someone interactively and immediately, IM is generally a better choice. On the other hand, if I want to send a good bit of information to someone that they're likely going to want to refer back to, or they're not online when I think of something I need to tell them, email is a much better alternative.
I quite like the way gmail is set up, and that is certainly done well to support a "conversational" format. I don't see why this persistent need in the tech community that one tool is always and for everything better than another. It seems pretty frequent though (Windows vs. Linux vs. *BSD vs. Solaris, email vs. IM, blogs vs. newsgroups, I could go on but I'd fill up the server.)
Why doesn't anyone acknowledge that, quite like in reality, software is a tool, and one type of tool is generally better at a given job then another? You don't use a hammer to loosen a nut, nor a wrench to drive a nail, and you wouldn't want to be stuck without either when the need arises.
A set of headphones is far cheaper, and you won't hear the fan a bit.
What specifically are you accusing him of, plagiarizing his own work?
However, it would take a lot of $1000 robots getting blown up before you could justify one of the higher-priced ones...presumably they get humans out of the area first? (Of course, in situations that that wouldn't be possible, you would still require the one with the highest probability of success, but for your average poking at garbage piles to see if they blow up this seems to make sense.)
It would seem to me that this could EASILY backfire...
News organization: "Candidate A has taken a COMMANDING lead in battleground state B."
Supporters of candidate B: "I thought we had it in the bag and I didn't need to go vote, I'd better get moving!"
That works too, wonder if they'd let me run the controls?
If, as I understand it, the robots would be brought down and destroyed after the mission anyway, why couldn't NASA get some more use out of them?
Put cameras on them with a feed to Earth, this is not that hard to do. Have the two robots slug it out in orbit over the Pacific, maybe with the moon as a backdrop, and drop 'em into the Pacific after that.
It probably strikes as a bit off-the-wall, but could have several benefits...the sale of advertising during the program could pay a decent bit of the bill, and hey, we need to do SOMETHING to get people aware that yes, there actually is something out there past the atmosphere. Might raise support for funding in several ways...for one, not needing so much of it (the advertisers), and for another, raising public awareness.
Yes, I'm advocating a publicity stunt. That's what seems to get people's attention.
Actually, that applies to -any- telemarketing calls, previous relationship or not. Ask them to stop calling and add you to their "do-not call" list. If you do this, it's illegal for them to call you again, period, landline or cell.
I'll see if I can locate it, but that was years ago.
Well, for future reference, I'm a liberal, social democrat, and I don't consider the word "liberal" to be a curse. And no, I didn't grow up in Massachusetts or California, Colorado actually. However, I still have no idea if the regulations are good or bad, since I haven't looked at them in depth for myself.
I don't think you read my post...
Nowhere in it did I say that the -current- regulations are a great idea, I haven't even seen them in detail, and they would be changed quite a bit by the realities of life on Mars in any case.
What I did say was that I'm glad to see the thought process starting right now, instead of 5 years after it's already started happening.