Most people simply accept that limitation. Doesn't matter to us that the PC can't play real-time party games, we aren't that demanding (never mind that I haven't found a console game yet that people are actually willing to play with four players, noone seems to like playing Smash Bros. or Mario Kart). And we've got good board games.
What would you rather see instead of the current copyright system? I don't mind it. I don't see what we're losing because of it. Oh, so we can't get all works for free, only the works the author wanted to be free? Does that hurt us somehow? If you want to enrich the public domain with your works you can still do that. Noone's stopping you from creating works and releasing them into the public domain. If someone wants to have money or not distribute his works at all that's his freedom of choice. After all, we don't expect people to let anyone into their house and we see it as their freedom to restrict access, not a loss for other people who are denied access to that house.
The difference is that Xerox is only distributing a tool, not any part of the copyrighted work. The tool by itself is not infringing. The data Google sends out is potentially infringing and if their service could be "convinced" to give the user a copy of the entire book Google has created an illegal copy. Xerox didn't make the copy, Google did.
except for the fact that in order to claim damages a copyright holder has to have notified the violator of the infringement, and Google already removes any book at the request of the copyright holder.
So the RIAA would have to send out a notice "Stop sharing our songs" before they can sure someone for damages? The various copyright holders have to go over to the guy selling CD-Rs with warez on them, tell him to stop and can only sue if he doesn't? That kind of system would make abuse way too easy, just infringe, if someone notices stop and you're free to go. The notice isn't required (unless you mean the court serving), it's nice to send a C&D letter beforehand but it's not necessary. You can start right away with a lawsuit but usually that only happens when you're trying to take money from someone or think he's acting in bad faith.
Selective enforcement does not apply to copyright since a copyright holder can determine who is infringing and who is tolerated and that's his right. The government cannot simply decide that a crime is tolerated unless they tolerate it for everyone commiting it since that'd be a big loophole for tyrants and corruption/nepotism. A private entity can choose at will whom to press charges against but the government cannot as it doesn't press charges for its own gain but does so in the name of society.
Trademark enforcement is important since a trademark is lost if it enters everyday speech (like photoshopping or googling) but AFAIK it's not automatically lost if you fail to protect it against misuse, it has to be actually adopted by the public as a generic term. E.g. the GIMP could feasibly say their program can photoshop images (if they had enough money for lawyers to defend that right) since that's a commonly accepted verb now. Of course they can't call their application Photoshop since that's not a generic term for image manipuilation software yet.
The Wii controller uses both an IR sensor to spot the bar placed under the TV and accelerometers to spot its own movement (and of course rotation). The nunchuk attachment uses only the accellerometers.
Of course Nintendo hasn't said anything about automatically compensating for the rumble. Perhaps they want rumble to interfere with the controls and devs start using rumble to add aiming difficulties for the player when the character should have difficulties aiming (e.g. running or full-auto shooting) instead of simply adding a random spray to each bullet fired? Or maybe games simply don't expect you to move the controller that accurately? After all most people will shake enough when holding the controller while they are full of adrenaline.
Not only that, the whole reason they talk about the budget is to advertise their engine as the way to cheaply make games without suffering any loss of quality.
A good game is good primarily because the gameplay is good, that doesn't get harder to implement as the console's complexity rises. Graphics and such get more difficult to make up to par but gameplay does not depend on the tech much. Graphical quality also gets more expensive as it gets better whereas better gameplay isn't that expensive to improve. Sure, fine balancing requires a lot of testing and polishing but a game can be good even without a lot of that simply by making sure the core rules of the gameplay are fun.
The movie? Are you sure you don't mean the TV series? That was a nice substitute for the first game that never got released here so I actually understood what the hell was going on in Ep. 2.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people simply accept that limitation. Doesn't matter to us that the PC can't play real-time party games, we aren't that demanding (never mind that I haven't found a console game yet that people are actually willing to play with four players, noone seems to like playing Smash Bros. or Mario Kart). And we've got good board games.
Are you kidding? If MS bought Ubisoft there wouldn't be any Ubisoft games for any non-Microsoft platform with the possible exception of the handhelds.
What would you rather see instead of the current copyright system? I don't mind it. I don't see what we're losing because of it. Oh, so we can't get all works for free, only the works the author wanted to be free? Does that hurt us somehow? If you want to enrich the public domain with your works you can still do that. Noone's stopping you from creating works and releasing them into the public domain. If someone wants to have money or not distribute his works at all that's his freedom of choice. After all, we don't expect people to let anyone into their house and we see it as their freedom to restrict access, not a loss for other people who are denied access to that house.
The difference is that Xerox is only distributing a tool, not any part of the copyrighted work. The tool by itself is not infringing. The data Google sends out is potentially infringing and if their service could be "convinced" to give the user a copy of the entire book Google has created an illegal copy. Xerox didn't make the copy, Google did.
except for the fact that in order to claim damages a copyright holder has to have notified the violator of the infringement, and Google already removes any book at the request of the copyright holder.
So the RIAA would have to send out a notice "Stop sharing our songs" before they can sure someone for damages? The various copyright holders have to go over to the guy selling CD-Rs with warez on them, tell him to stop and can only sue if he doesn't? That kind of system would make abuse way too easy, just infringe, if someone notices stop and you're free to go. The notice isn't required (unless you mean the court serving), it's nice to send a C&D letter beforehand but it's not necessary. You can start right away with a lawsuit but usually that only happens when you're trying to take money from someone or think he's acting in bad faith.
Selective enforcement does not apply to copyright since a copyright holder can determine who is infringing and who is tolerated and that's his right. The government cannot simply decide that a crime is tolerated unless they tolerate it for everyone commiting it since that'd be a big loophole for tyrants and corruption/nepotism. A private entity can choose at will whom to press charges against but the government cannot as it doesn't press charges for its own gain but does so in the name of society.
Trademark enforcement is important since a trademark is lost if it enters everyday speech (like photoshopping or googling) but AFAIK it's not automatically lost if you fail to protect it against misuse, it has to be actually adopted by the public as a generic term. E.g. the GIMP could feasibly say their program can photoshop images (if they had enough money for lawyers to defend that right) since that's a commonly accepted verb now. Of course they can't call their application Photoshop since that's not a generic term for image manipuilation software yet.
Play Worms.
Independent means they're not part of a bigger company in this case.
You know, wireless controllers need batteries... That's gonna be fun!
Correction: Everybody knows that console games are so overpriced in Europe that we prefer PC games instead.
Yes but with a Starbucks Latte you'd have people asking if that's supposed to strengthen or kill them.
The Wii controller uses both an IR sensor to spot the bar placed under the TV and accelerometers to spot its own movement (and of course rotation). The nunchuk attachment uses only the accellerometers.
Of course Nintendo hasn't said anything about automatically compensating for the rumble. Perhaps they want rumble to interfere with the controls and devs start using rumble to add aiming difficulties for the player when the character should have difficulties aiming (e.g. running or full-auto shooting) instead of simply adding a random spray to each bullet fired? Or maybe games simply don't expect you to move the controller that accurately? After all most people will shake enough when holding the controller while they are full of adrenaline.
Of course not, they're advertising the engine with that number. "License our engine and even you can make graphically impressive games for cheap!"
Not only that, the whole reason they talk about the budget is to advertise their engine as the way to cheaply make games without suffering any loss of quality.
I'd rather be fighting giant ants with rocket launchers and friggin' lasers but that aside, where did he say anything about the PS3?
A good game is good primarily because the gameplay is good, that doesn't get harder to implement as the console's complexity rises. Graphics and such get more difficult to make up to par but gameplay does not depend on the tech much. Graphical quality also gets more expensive as it gets better whereas better gameplay isn't that expensive to improve. Sure, fine balancing requires a lot of testing and polishing but a game can be good even without a lot of that simply by making sure the core rules of the gameplay are fun.
He also suggests that sex is the most potent cure for hiccups, but that won't really affect anyone on slashdot.
It sounds like masturbation would work just as well.
And let's not forget the kids who are half deaf after listening to music at 120dB all day.
I'm thinking they're going for a Charlie Foxtrot.
They don't pretend the world isn't moving, they decided it's not profitable to do HD.
Each charge carries a fine of up to $10,000 and three years in prison.
Wait, I thought unauthorized access to computer data AKA hacking carries a 250 000$ fine and 15 years maximum sentence?
The movie? Are you sure you don't mean the TV series? That was a nice substitute for the first game that never got released here so I actually understood what the hell was going on in Ep. 2.
I tdon't think that'd work, the proponents of electronic voting claim it is completely secure.
Not only that, you'll be sued for copyright infringement by the RIAA.