Of course there will be people trying to pass off their shirts as Tommy Hilfiger with a fine print somewhere that makes it legal. However I'm not convinced that this "market" should exist, considering the label "Tommy Hilfiger" has no meaning or value other than making the product look like it was made or authorized by said company (there would be no "brand labelled tshirt" market if trademarks didn't exist and the brandnames had no meaning).
I believe forcing people to invent their own designs and allowing them to keep them will make them compete with their designs and thus creating a selection process that leads to better designs rather than cheapening out and just reusing somebody else's design (remember that a free market always punishes inventors as their inventions will be used by the competition too but the competition does not incurr the cost of inventing or in this case marketing). The design of a product is one of the attributes it uses to compete in a given market, just like the price and quality. Letting everyone take everyone else's designs has the same effect on the market as forcing the same price or the same quality on all goods in that they reduce the number of attributes the goods can compete in.
Dunno, marketing encompasses a lot of things and while some things like billboards are acceptable, the electronic equivalent of running up to random people and screaming at them to buy some junk (without it ever stopping and without the ioption to punch the screamer in the face) is definitely not.
But why? You can make up any logo you want, you can just not use those other people already invented. What kind of legitimate interest is there to create something that prominently features somebody else's trademark in a way not covered by fair use and without letting that somebody decide on whether you can use it? It's not like "T-shirt labelled Tommy Hilfiger" is a whole market that needs competition.
the perceived benefit of war is assessed to be greater than the suffering and death the war will cause.
Will cause to people you know or care about. Many famous warmongers didn't really care about the death and suffering to the lower classes of society, they only care about the result for their own class which is usually more land and very little death if they win (if they lose they probably die but the footmen that fight will probably die, no matter whether their side wins or loses).
Because they are being made with DX as that allows porting the game to a console with an actual userbase (i.e. not PS3)? The Wii needs a separate bunch of assets (and realistically new controls) anyway so it's not a simple port. Sure you could use the same engine but you have to remake pretty much everything in the game anyway, much easier to either ignore the Wii or hire some outsourcing company to make a Wii version from scratch for you.
See Title 17, United States Code, section 602, which bans importing more than one copy of a game. This means that imported handheld games and those imported console games that lack split-screen mode have no multiplayer.
That limit is most likely not nationwide so if you need multiple copies to play MP it's sufficient if everyone buys his own copy, just as it's intended with locally released games (they don't expect a single user to, say, amass 16 copies of Faceball 2000 just to set up a multiplayer game). Of course if the online service rejects you for living in the wrong region that's something else (you'll probably rejected for modding the console in first place) but AFAIK at least imported DS games can be played online.
But Sony Computer Entertainment America stole your money from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.
I believe the capitalists call that competition: If SCEE can't get the games out fast and cheap enough that the importing delays and costs are cheaper than their wares they will lose customers to the faster parts of the company. Sony may not want their regional subsidiaries to compete against each other but they could easily prevent most imports by simply kicking the right butts inside SCEE and making sure those games are released without delay like every PC game dev (and many console publishers that also handle PC games) seems to be capable of.
Not necessarily. Some games are released without any translation (often with a hastily thrown together manual but sometimes not even that) so it's quite possible to just skip that, especially for games that don't involve much text.
The implication by the first poster was that the more tickets the police hands out, the more they are paid (common idea on/. when it comes to complaining about the police so even if it wasn't intended it sure sounded like that). What your parent explained is that they get paid a budget raised from the taxes, not from the tickets.
I dunno, even different time vectors seem strage to me since you can't really move through time (as movement is defined to happen over time and when stuff moves at different speeds it tends to be no longer near each other). Different time "speeds" like what happens at reat elocities seems to me like it'd belong more to some effect that just slows down the processes inside the object (e.g. at higher speeds every particle and stuff inside the object has most of it's energy "capacity"* taken up by that linear motion with less left for its internal processes). After all, we only know that the clock performed less ticks during its fast travel which could just as well happen if all atomic processes were simply slowed down without any actual time stuff being involved. Well, any stuff sience fiction fans could use at least, you'd probably still be able to call it time and use a vector to symbolize the "unspent" eenergy within an object, like the potential energy used for normal scale gravity equations. Wouldn't surprise me if the whole time idea was really just a way to express that and people kept thinking time meant the thing where history happened so we got all that time travel SciFi**.
*= There's a cap on the energy an object of a given mass can contain, right? After all it can't move faster than lightspeed which limits it to some energy so it doesn't seem too farfetched that the sum of all energies within the object could be constant.
**= Makes me wonder if Wells's book came out after "dimensional" time was introduced or if he just liked the idea to travel to other time periods.
A possible problem would be the growing importance of the net, wouldn't surprise me if within the next 10 years some regular interaction with the government (filing taxes for example) would only be allowed through a computer.
White collar crimes affect loads of people while providing much greater incentive since they're often really profitable. To counteract that incentive you have to make matching punishments so they'll think twice before illegally making millions if they risk going to jail for 15 years.
Also this guy's a serious repeat offender. If you gave him a month per batch of spam he sent he'd probably end up with much more than 11 years.
Personally I prefer non-dimensional time since it would automatically prohibit all time travel and other paradoxes (the other way would be a dimensional time that's written out completely (otherwise it violates conservation of mass) which would obviously be static and as such have no issue with time travel either). No idea how many experiments show a dimensional time though, I think it's required to explain some phenomena.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there will be people trying to pass off their shirts as Tommy Hilfiger with a fine print somewhere that makes it legal. However I'm not convinced that this "market" should exist, considering the label "Tommy Hilfiger" has no meaning or value other than making the product look like it was made or authorized by said company (there would be no "brand labelled tshirt" market if trademarks didn't exist and the brandnames had no meaning).
I believe forcing people to invent their own designs and allowing them to keep them will make them compete with their designs and thus creating a selection process that leads to better designs rather than cheapening out and just reusing somebody else's design (remember that a free market always punishes inventors as their inventions will be used by the competition too but the competition does not incurr the cost of inventing or in this case marketing). The design of a product is one of the attributes it uses to compete in a given market, just like the price and quality. Letting everyone take everyone else's designs has the same effect on the market as forcing the same price or the same quality on all goods in that they reduce the number of attributes the goods can compete in.
Dunno, marketing encompasses a lot of things and while some things like billboards are acceptable, the electronic equivalent of running up to random people and screaming at them to buy some junk (without it ever stopping and without the ioption to punch the screamer in the face) is definitely not.
No because it wouldn't accelerate that quickly.
Um, what? The speed of sound inside the pole, not that of the surroundings.
That's between laughable speed and ludicrous speed.
But why? You can make up any logo you want, you can just not use those other people already invented. What kind of legitimate interest is there to create something that prominently features somebody else's trademark in a way not covered by fair use and without letting that somebody decide on whether you can use it? It's not like "T-shirt labelled Tommy Hilfiger" is a whole market that needs competition.
the perceived benefit of war is assessed to be greater than the suffering and death the war will cause.
Will cause to people you know or care about. Many famous warmongers didn't really care about the death and suffering to the lower classes of society, they only care about the result for their own class which is usually more land and very little death if they win (if they lose they probably die but the footmen that fight will probably die, no matter whether their side wins or loses).
Well, you go ahead and invent cold fusion, we're going to stay with old and proven technology.
Because they are being made with DX as that allows porting the game to a console with an actual userbase (i.e. not PS3)? The Wii needs a separate bunch of assets (and realistically new controls) anyway so it's not a simple port. Sure you could use the same engine but you have to remake pretty much everything in the game anyway, much easier to either ignore the Wii or hire some outsourcing company to make a Wii version from scratch for you.
I know SNK uses years, makes it look quite strange when a game labelled 2003 lands on shelves in 2006.
Reading graphics memory content to the main RAM happens at 16MB/sec (or possibly Mb), not sure you want that.
See Title 17, United States Code, section 602, which bans importing more than one copy of a game. This means that imported handheld games and those imported console games that lack split-screen mode have no multiplayer.
That limit is most likely not nationwide so if you need multiple copies to play MP it's sufficient if everyone buys his own copy, just as it's intended with locally released games (they don't expect a single user to, say, amass 16 copies of Faceball 2000 just to set up a multiplayer game). Of course if the online service rejects you for living in the wrong region that's something else (you'll probably rejected for modding the console in first place) but AFAIK at least imported DS games can be played online.
But Sony Computer Entertainment America stole your money from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.
I believe the capitalists call that competition: If SCEE can't get the games out fast and cheap enough that the importing delays and costs are cheaper than their wares they will lose customers to the faster parts of the company. Sony may not want their regional subsidiaries to compete against each other but they could easily prevent most imports by simply kicking the right butts inside SCEE and making sure those games are released without delay like every PC game dev (and many console publishers that also handle PC games) seems to be capable of.
Not necessarily. Some games are released without any translation (often with a hastily thrown together manual but sometimes not even that) so it's quite possible to just skip that, especially for games that don't involve much text.
The implication by the first poster was that the more tickets the police hands out, the more they are paid (common idea on /. when it comes to complaining about the police so even if it wasn't intended it sure sounded like that). What your parent explained is that they get paid a budget raised from the taxes, not from the tickets.
Sounds like you need more enforcement so the speed of the traffic matches the speed limit.
I'd expect MI to be Lucas Arts's property. They could get Sam and Max because that was Steve Purcell's series and they got Purcell to join them.
Because then they could only release one game per year.
I dunno, even different time vectors seem strage to me since you can't really move through time (as movement is defined to happen over time and when stuff moves at different speeds it tends to be no longer near each other). Different time "speeds" like what happens at reat elocities seems to me like it'd belong more to some effect that just slows down the processes inside the object (e.g. at higher speeds every particle and stuff inside the object has most of it's energy "capacity"* taken up by that linear motion with less left for its internal processes). After all, we only know that the clock performed less ticks during its fast travel which could just as well happen if all atomic processes were simply slowed down without any actual time stuff being involved. Well, any stuff sience fiction fans could use at least, you'd probably still be able to call it time and use a vector to symbolize the "unspent" eenergy within an object, like the potential energy used for normal scale gravity equations. Wouldn't surprise me if the whole time idea was really just a way to express that and people kept thinking time meant the thing where history happened so we got all that time travel SciFi**.
*= There's a cap on the energy an object of a given mass can contain, right? After all it can't move faster than lightspeed which limits it to some energy so it doesn't seem too farfetched that the sum of all energies within the object could be constant.
**= Makes me wonder if Wells's book came out after "dimensional" time was introduced or if he just liked the idea to travel to other time periods.
Compare the punishment for spamming millions of people with the punishment of raping millions of people, though.
A possible problem would be the growing importance of the net, wouldn't surprise me if within the next 10 years some regular interaction with the government (filing taxes for example) would only be allowed through a computer.
White collar crimes affect loads of people while providing much greater incentive since they're often really profitable. To counteract that incentive you have to make matching punishments so they'll think twice before illegally making millions if they risk going to jail for 15 years.
Also this guy's a serious repeat offender. If you gave him a month per batch of spam he sent he'd probably end up with much more than 11 years.
Personally I prefer non-dimensional time since it would automatically prohibit all time travel and other paradoxes (the other way would be a dimensional time that's written out completely (otherwise it violates conservation of mass) which would obviously be static and as such have no issue with time travel either). No idea how many experiments show a dimensional time though, I think it's required to explain some phenomena.
Yep but violating causality would make it quite hard to determine which post was actually the first.
That is assuming there is such a thing as an alternate future self.
I think he wants FTL travel, though, which certainly violates special relativity.