I'm not referring to gays, just people who have sex with many different partners and don't want to live in constant fear of AIDS, be they gay, straight or redneck.
Depends. If the TV costs like 3000$ to replace the customer will keep using it as long as possible and when replacing it might go with another manufacturer (and possibly avoid your products if the lifespan was too short in the customer's eyes). If the backlight can be replaced for e.g. 250$ the customer is far more likely to replace it when the picture suffers a bit rather than waiting until the TV is FUBAR.
It's BQP, not QP. The B means that the answer it gives has a chance of over 50% to be correct and running the algorithm often enough allows you to guess the correct answer by seeing the rate at which each occurs.
Id also love to see Alphonse and Edward Elric from Full Metal Alchemist - its originally an anime, but there has been two reasonably good games released. Id love to see some alchemy reactions in there : ) -Red
AFAIK those games were PS2 exclusive. One requirement for getting a char in SSBB is obviously that the char has appeared on a Nintendo platform before.
I have a feeling Simon Belmont is more likely than all the others you mentioned. Megaman would be appropriate given his old-school nature but Inafune is a PSP fanboy AFAIK so he might veto that.
It's her untranslated name. She was called Toadstool in the west because the idea of a human being the ruler over a bunch of mushroom people seemed pretty racist so they wanted to suggest that the princess is one of the mushroom people. The only retconning was later merging the names into "Peach Toadstool".
It's the patent issue. The Wii has rumble and motion sensing. In fact that may be desired for some games (e.g. aiming with the controller, when you fire the gun the rumble goes into full force to mess up your aim). Although Nintendo has patent issues as well, their rumble must be on-off only, no variable strength (although, as the GC shows, you can simulate varying strengths with that, too).
Copyright adds an option for the artist, the option to use it. If you want to do the service model and waive all restrictions copyright lets you place you have the freedom to do so. It's completely opt-in. It also gives the people who don't want to run this as a service the power to choose a different format. Of course it doesn't give the end user the option to choose which model to apply to a good but the end user has the choice to take his money elsewhere.
As I pointed out above, the wrapper is unnecessary. Capitalism handles services just fine already.
The wrapper moves it from service to good category.
Furthermore, the wrapper isn't exactly thin: look at all the invasive laws that it needs to support it.
No, those are unnecessary. The law itself provides and enforces all power a copyright holder will ever need, the ones who demand more and more technical or legal additions just want a special treatment they're not entitled to (if the law let them they wouldn't need the extra crap, if the law doesn't let them they shouldn't be able to either).
Right.. what happens under today's system is the opposite: you do work without knowing whether or not you'll get paid for it. You invest a ton of time up front, you get a loan from your publisher, and if there isn't as much demand for your work as you hoped, then you have to pay it back and you've wasted all that time.
Well, that's how it works with every business. Getting paid without your product making money means you're an employee instead of an employer.
How much should you get paid, exactly, when it's evident that people are unwilling to pay the price you're asking?
Nothing. But your customers shouldn't be able to get it either. The deal isn't made and you just sit on your stack of unsold merchandise and need to rethink your business strategy. But neither party should be able to circumvent the deal. You don't break into their house and steal their money, they don't take your product for free. Of course we could easily do it that way, we get to download any works we want and the RIAA, MPAA, etc. is free to take our physical property. Mandatory sales contracts.
The free market is the primary way we determine prices. You say "they're just being cheap", I say "the market has spoken and the optimal price is $0".
Duh. The optimal price, from the view of the buyer, is 0. That's why we had to codify things like theft. Because unlawfully acquiring something is usually much more profitable than paying for it.
They did sell, at least for a few weeks. Of course now it's huge stockpiles everywhere and I keep wondering when we'll see a pricedrop or something equivalent.
They know they can buy as many as available. They also know that the preorders for the 360 vastly exceeded the supply that was available afterwards, probably reducing customer confidence in preorders and as such threatening one source of income for them.
Heh, I remember walking into Media Markt on 360 launch day and there was a long line of people who had preordered, the last console was given out and people were complaining that their preorders weren't filled. Then I walked over to Karstadt and saw a pile of 6 360s sitting there.
To you one sports car is like any other, to a collector it isn't. To me one pop song is like any other but to you it isn't. Also even songs I can strongly tell apart still compete, when I go into a store with the desire to buy a CD and see e.g. one by Metallica and one by Iron Maiden, neither of which I own I'd decide which to buy on various merits, including the price. Even though few copyrighted works provide exactly the same value here is still strong competition between them, anyone who doesn't already own all but one work he wants has the option to buy a competing product which provides better value. Since I rarely buy CDs or videos I'll use videogames as an example: There are often large numbers of budget titles available so buying a game at full price would require that I want that game a LOT and even then I could still decide that some other good game for a budget price is a better deal to me.
Nobody's forcing them to spend that money, you know. There's a perfectly good way to create artistic works, and get paid for it, without the possibility of having your sales undermined by P2P users: get the money up front. Find an audience who's willing to pay for your services before you spend all that time and money writing something. If you'd rather do the work now and look for money later, pretending that a song is something you can manufacture and sell in discrete units like bicycles or cereal, then you're taking the risk that people will get it without paying, because all the laws in the world can't change the fact that a song is information and it's impossible to stop the spread of information.
Of course you can get money up front but until there is a real scarcity of works available for free (i.e. everyone has seen everything he likes already) you'll have trouble finding someone to pay you. There are some people that pay an artist for a special occassion but those are usually affluent.
People with money are usually pretty conservative with it, they want to know they're getting something good for their money so they might not like it if you told them you wanted to try something out that you don't know will work. There was a time when paying up front was standard and there is a reason all the great artists died in poverty.
In any case this would greatly reduce the number of works being made. Copyright is a thin wrapper around the product "art" that allows it to be subject to the basic selection mechanisms present in capitalism. Sure, payment up front will eventually select as well, someone producing bad works won't get more funding but in today's system the selection is much faster and doesn't require artists to become dependent on a big money giver (currently you can self-publish, that power would die along with copyright).
Furthermore, just because you spent money "in the hope to see sales" doesn't mean you deserve to get paid. That was the original point of the turd polishing metaphor: you don't get paid just for doing work in our society, you get paid for doing work that people are willing to pay you for.
Yes but you don't get paid for unwanted work with today's system either. But you SHOULD get paid when people clearly want your work (download it via P2P) and simply decide to be cheap and not pay for it.
It won't work if there's a strong IR source (e.g. halogen lamp without cover) next to your TV. Apparently the same can be observed by placing that IR source in front of the TV and seeing the TV remote stop working.
Slashdot Mirror
Explosives are restricted to those who have a legitimate use for them. Who has Bittorrent but no legitimate uses for it?
If there was a vaccine against car accidents, wouldn't you take it?
I'm not referring to gays, just people who have sex with many different partners and don't want to live in constant fear of AIDS, be they gay, straight or redneck.
That was the first retconning attempt. She was simply called Peach in the japanese versions of all previous SMB titles.
. 22Toadstool.22_to_.22Peach.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Peach#From_
Yeah and no LCD TV can display 1280x960.
"Richer colors" is an euphemism for "oversaturates the image".
Depends. If the TV costs like 3000$ to replace the customer will keep using it as long as possible and when replacing it might go with another manufacturer (and possibly avoid your products if the lifespan was too short in the customer's eyes). If the backlight can be replaced for e.g. 250$ the customer is far more likely to replace it when the picture suffers a bit rather than waiting until the TV is FUBAR.
It's BQP, not QP. The B means that the answer it gives has a chance of over 50% to be correct and running the algorithm often enough allows you to guess the correct answer by seeing the rate at which each occurs.
Because people would like it if they didn't have to restrict their lifestyle because of AIDS?
The cartoonified Pacman from the manual?
Capcom has their own fighting games. Smash Brothers is a big competitor for them.
So is SNK.
Id also love to see Alphonse and Edward Elric from Full Metal Alchemist - its originally an anime, but there has been two reasonably good games released. Id love to see some alchemy reactions in there : ) -Red
AFAIK those games were PS2 exclusive. One requirement for getting a char in SSBB is obviously that the char has appeared on a Nintendo platform before.
I have a feeling Simon Belmont is more likely than all the others you mentioned. Megaman would be appropriate given his old-school nature but Inafune is a PSP fanboy AFAIK so he might veto that.
It's her untranslated name. She was called Toadstool in the west because the idea of a human being the ruler over a bunch of mushroom people seemed pretty racist so they wanted to suggest that the princess is one of the mushroom people. The only retconning was later merging the names into "Peach Toadstool".
It's the patent issue. The Wii has rumble and motion sensing. In fact that may be desired for some games (e.g. aiming with the controller, when you fire the gun the rumble goes into full force to mess up your aim). Although Nintendo has patent issues as well, their rumble must be on-off only, no variable strength (although, as the GC shows, you can simulate varying strengths with that, too).
Copyright adds an option for the artist, the option to use it. If you want to do the service model and waive all restrictions copyright lets you place you have the freedom to do so. It's completely opt-in. It also gives the people who don't want to run this as a service the power to choose a different format. Of course it doesn't give the end user the option to choose which model to apply to a good but the end user has the choice to take his money elsewhere.
As I pointed out above, the wrapper is unnecessary. Capitalism handles services just fine already.
The wrapper moves it from service to good category.
Furthermore, the wrapper isn't exactly thin: look at all the invasive laws that it needs to support it.
No, those are unnecessary. The law itself provides and enforces all power a copyright holder will ever need, the ones who demand more and more technical or legal additions just want a special treatment they're not entitled to (if the law let them they wouldn't need the extra crap, if the law doesn't let them they shouldn't be able to either).
Right.. what happens under today's system is the opposite: you do work without knowing whether or not you'll get paid for it. You invest a ton of time up front, you get a loan from your publisher, and if there isn't as much demand for your work as you hoped, then you have to pay it back and you've wasted all that time.
Well, that's how it works with every business. Getting paid without your product making money means you're an employee instead of an employer.
How much should you get paid, exactly, when it's evident that people are unwilling to pay the price you're asking?
Nothing. But your customers shouldn't be able to get it either. The deal isn't made and you just sit on your stack of unsold merchandise and need to rethink your business strategy. But neither party should be able to circumvent the deal. You don't break into their house and steal their money, they don't take your product for free. Of course we could easily do it that way, we get to download any works we want and the RIAA, MPAA, etc. is free to take our physical property. Mandatory sales contracts.
The free market is the primary way we determine prices. You say "they're just being cheap", I say "the market has spoken and the optimal price is $0".
Duh. The optimal price, from the view of the buyer, is 0. That's why we had to codify things like theft. Because unlawfully acquiring something is usually much more profitable than paying for it.
They did sell, at least for a few weeks. Of course now it's huge stockpiles everywhere and I keep wondering when we'll see a pricedrop or something equivalent.
I thought that was because the BPjM got convinced that CS does not make killing humans your goal and that you can win a round without shooting anyone.
They know they can buy as many as available. They also know that the preorders for the 360 vastly exceeded the supply that was available afterwards, probably reducing customer confidence in preorders and as such threatening one source of income for them.
Heh, I remember walking into Media Markt on 360 launch day and there was a long line of people who had preordered, the last console was given out and people were complaining that their preorders weren't filled. Then I walked over to Karstadt and saw a pile of 6 360s sitting there.
They were just a week ago. Of course that was just a store where they didn't get around to changing the logo and merchandise to read Gamestop yet.
To you one sports car is like any other, to a collector it isn't. To me one pop song is like any other but to you it isn't. Also even songs I can strongly tell apart still compete, when I go into a store with the desire to buy a CD and see e.g. one by Metallica and one by Iron Maiden, neither of which I own I'd decide which to buy on various merits, including the price. Even though few copyrighted works provide exactly the same value here is still strong competition between them, anyone who doesn't already own all but one work he wants has the option to buy a competing product which provides better value. Since I rarely buy CDs or videos I'll use videogames as an example: There are often large numbers of budget titles available so buying a game at full price would require that I want that game a LOT and even then I could still decide that some other good game for a budget price is a better deal to me.
Nobody's forcing them to spend that money, you know. There's a perfectly good way to create artistic works, and get paid for it, without the possibility of having your sales undermined by P2P users: get the money up front. Find an audience who's willing to pay for your services before you spend all that time and money writing something. If you'd rather do the work now and look for money later, pretending that a song is something you can manufacture and sell in discrete units like bicycles or cereal, then you're taking the risk that people will get it without paying, because all the laws in the world can't change the fact that a song is information and it's impossible to stop the spread of information.
Of course you can get money up front but until there is a real scarcity of works available for free (i.e. everyone has seen everything he likes already) you'll have trouble finding someone to pay you. There are some people that pay an artist for a special occassion but those are usually affluent.
People with money are usually pretty conservative with it, they want to know they're getting something good for their money so they might not like it if you told them you wanted to try something out that you don't know will work. There was a time when paying up front was standard and there is a reason all the great artists died in poverty.
In any case this would greatly reduce the number of works being made. Copyright is a thin wrapper around the product "art" that allows it to be subject to the basic selection mechanisms present in capitalism. Sure, payment up front will eventually select as well, someone producing bad works won't get more funding but in today's system the selection is much faster and doesn't require artists to become dependent on a big money giver (currently you can self-publish, that power would die along with copyright).
Furthermore, just because you spent money "in the hope to see sales" doesn't mean you deserve to get paid. That was the original point of the turd polishing metaphor: you don't get paid just for doing work in our society, you get paid for doing work that people are willing to pay you for.
Yes but you don't get paid for unwanted work with today's system either. But you SHOULD get paid when people clearly want your work (download it via P2P) and simply decide to be cheap and not pay for it.
It won't work if there's a strong IR source (e.g. halogen lamp without cover) next to your TV. Apparently the same can be observed by placing that IR source in front of the TV and seeing the TV remote stop working.
Pfft. Try explaining to their parents that you want to show them your Wii.
But hey, if you want to stick with the 19" CRT and keep telling yourself how much more "fun" you're having than the rest of us, knock yourself out!
My 19" CRT is currently running at 1280x960 and 85 Hz, no interlacing. Looks a hell of a lot better than most TVs I've seen and cost me 150€.