There is nothing illegal about passive material or even designing a building that will block cell phone signals as long as they don't produce any signals on their own. Where the FCC would come into play is if these fibers were somehow transmitting an active jamming signal. I'm sure that the FCC's main concern is that active jamming might jam more than just its intended target. I can't say that I disagree with that concern.
Someone else mentioned a Faraday cage, which might be great to implement with new buildings but would probably be unrealistic for existing buildings, depending on the nature of the business/organization.
For theatres and auditoriums, this is an excellent alternative, particularly since a lot of theatres and auditoriums could probably use a new coat of paint anyway.:)
Then it comes down to the definition of "appreciation". Does it encompass only the pleasure of stomping out spam, only the pleasure of possibly getting in shape, or both? I would think that if the idea is employed appropriately, there will be a continuing appreciation for it, particularly in those companies that might not have any kind of health/exercise area on-site.
People might appreciate it differently than we think. So, it's very possible that it won't be appreciated as briefly as we might.
And if the company has any kind of high turn-around, such as at a customer service site, there are always new people coming through the door to catch onto the gimmick.
So, I'm not dismissing this idea as quickly as others are.
Oh, for crying out loud. You're just being argumentative now for the sake of being argumentative.
Where is it written that there can't be a special area put aside somewhere for people to go to do this? Companies that have on-site gyms put them in their own room. So, I would expect any company that does a DDR-stress-reliever to do the same thing.
All that you'd need are volunteers inside the company who need a stress reliever. Not only would they be able to work out their frustrations in a physical manner, it would also be good physchological help. Pent up frustrations have been proven to have negative, physical reactions, so this could be a great way for employees to work it off.
Frustrated by your manager's micromanging? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Frustrated by your spouse or family members to the point that it's affecting your ability to work efficiently? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Frustrated by your next-door-cubicle-neighbor's incessant use of the speakerphone? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Frustrated by people trying desperately to get first post on Slashdot for reasons that no one seems to comprehend? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Hell, even just basic aerobic exercise that normal cubicle dwellers would not get would be motivation enough. I know that I wouldn't mind stomping out some spam for about 15 minutes after lunch to burn some of it off. That would be 15 minutes more exercise than I'd normally get and I'd love every minute of it, knowing that I'm thwarting the potential success of those low-life spammers.
Make it a volunteer-only project; make the rules clear that if you have a coronary -- well, you volunteered.
Stamp out spam, get some exercise, lose weight, release negative emotions, tone up, do some good for yourself and the computing community - at the same time. Sounds like a win-win to me.
I thought that the effects of flying through a black hole were known since 1979! In fact, if you zoom in on this massive image, you can just barely make out the survivors of the Nostromo! (Okay, that was lame, but I'm shocked that I appear to be the first to make reference to the movie.)
Anyone who intentionally hides ALL posts by someone because of a FEW posts (although admittedly TMM has posted more than a few annoying posts) is engaging in human stupdidity as far as I'm concerned. I still see it as a form of censorship, even if it's self-imposed, because the fear or dislike of a few is preventing the rest from being seen.
Am I stretching the term a bit? Perhaps. That doesn't mean that I have to conform.
That might be true, however, we're all here on Slashdot voluntarily. We know the risks of reading posts. People that we just don't agree with are part of the deal. And if you can't deal with someone else's posts, you're under no obligation to read them nor are you under any obligation to be on Slashdot.
Again, just my opinion that happens to differ from the Slashdot groupthink, which is a horrible thing, I know.
Seriously though, couldn't Taco just make this guy an editor or something, because he first posts waaayy too much.
I remember seeing a suspiciously anonymous post suggesting the same thing, praising TMM like the second Slashdot coming. Needless to say, I immediately assumed that he was the author hiding under AC. If you think that becoming an editor isn't already TMM's perogative, based on how he spends IMHO too much time desperate to provide links and first posts, then you're playing right into his hands.
I think his energies would be better spent on proof reading article summaries rather than hovering over a constantly refreshing main-page.
And you think that he's the only one that fits that category? I'm sure that thousands of people do the same thing. TMM only has an advantage because he's a subscriber.
Yeah, yeah, I'm continuing an off-topic thread, but it had to be said.
Marking anyone as a foe is nothing more than Slashdot hypocrisy. It's absolutely amazing to me how so many people on Slashdot decry any kind of censorship, whether it be {insert corporation}'s poilcy with China, U.S. government censorship, or whatever. But then in the same breath can turn around and say "Just mark him 'Foe'!"
Censorship is censorship, whether it's done by a corporate entity, a government, or by a "Foe" list. Besides, it's ridiculous to censor an entire person just because of a few posts that you might not like. Who know what other posts are worth reading that you're no longer seeing because of that that "Foe" mark.
I am getting pissed TMM's karma whoring and mind-baffling need for a first post as well, and I could just as easily mark his as "Foe". I won't because occasionally he does post something that is actually worth reading (not often, I grant you), and I think it's hypocritical of the Slashdot groupthink to suggest that anyone should use "Foe". As far as I'm concerned, any time you mark someone as "Foe" you're saying, "I'm too closed minded to be able to deal with a differing opinion from mine, so I'm just going to censor you entirely."
Hell, we're not talking about spam here -- although sometimes I think TMM is trying to get close to it.
Just my two cents. Convert to your local currency as necessary.
This could lead to some great human programming! Think about it!
New GEEK YOGURT with Enzymatic-Action (TM)! Comes in new exciting arrangements!
Now you can become a Perl expert with our Perl Programming yogurt! Comes in the convenient beer flavor!
Our new BFG2000 yogurt with Hyper-Enzymatic-Action (TM) will help you to maintain focus and alertness during those long, overnight CS or BF2 sessions! Comes in Jolt and Penguin Mint flavors!
Our C++ yogurt doesn't come in one package but instead comes in several small packages that work together!
Our Increase Your Attractiveness To Girls yogurt is still in development, but we're working on it. It's not as easy as we thought.
We've given up on our.NET yogurt because it's too difficult to swallow.
Increase your memory with our RAM super-enzymatic yogurt! Just remember that you'll need to eat a good helping of this every year or so as life's base requirements keep increasing.
Finally, our Microsoft yogurt with BSOD enzymes with help you to learn to do new and amazing things that you've been able to do for a long time with competitors' yogurts, but now you won't have the extra expense of buying theirs! (Why, no, that's not anti-competitive. Why do you ask?)
It's a simple failure of comprehension of the task that they have been asked to do. They thought it was simple, but it's not, and they're understandably in shock at that fact. Okay, you and me understand copyright, and we knew this from the beginning, but this person clearly didn't. That is the disturbing part, and shows that the message being put forth by the RIAA is taking greater hold. Violating copyright is indeed illegal, but what constitutes that violation is more complex than simply burning CD's and selling (or giving) them to other people. The message they're pushing is that it's always wrong, and that message is getting through.
I alluded to this in a previous reply, but it deserves another post.:)
This is nothing more than the reversal of the "I didn't know it was illegal" exucse that some people try to get away with. We're expected to know the law and ignorance is not an excuse. The same should be applied to our police officers. "We didn't know it was legal" should not be an excuse.
Consider this also. Many police departments assign policement based on their specialties. For example, they're not about to send an officer with no drug enforcement experience or training to go on a major drug bust. The same should happen with copyright. Find those officers that are computer-saavy and make sure that they're called in when a potential copyright issue comes about so that they can adequately determine if there is indeed a copyright issue. If there are no officers with that knowledge, train them! Bring in a knowledgeable computer consultant to train them on how to spot legal as well as illegal software and teach them about the various types of free software that are legal. Sure, they can't be expected to memorize the Sourceforge database, but teach them the most popular names and why it's legal to sell copies.
But that's irrelevant. Just because he doesn't know that one is legal doesn't mean that he can't enforce the law on what's illegal. If that person can produce documentation, such as the EULA, that clearly states that selling a piece of software is legal, then he is exonerated from prosecution for selling that software only.
If someone is selling legal copies of software A and selling illegal copies of software B, then he can still be prosecuted for selling software B. The statement that I'm talking about makes it seem as though any legal selling automatically nullifies prosecutorial action for selling software illegally at the same time, which is ludicrous.
This sounds a lot like the "I didn't know it was illegal" excuse except from the policeman's point of view -- "I didn't know it was legal." The citizens are expected to know what's legal and what's not. There is no reason to not expect the same from our law enforcement officers.
Will someone please tell me what the hell this is supposed to mean?!
If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation.
This is one of the most asinine things I've heard in a long time! Just because one piece of software says that it can be distributed even though it's free does not mean that suddenly anti-piracy legislation is unenforceable! In fact, anti-piracy legislation does not even come into play here because there was no piracy going on! Either that quote is being taken way out of context or they are actually trying to say that not being able to prosecute those who copy Firefox means that they won't be able to prosecute those who copy Windows, Photoshop, or other programs that clearly fall under anti-piracy legislation!
In fact, this kind of distribution and marketing has been going on since the Commodore 64 days! Free software would be distributed for about $2 per floppy disk at local computer meets to cover the cost of media and duplication. In fact, that's how a lot of PC shareware got distributed. I used to write some shareware apps that were free to distrubte, just not free to use. I sent disks all over the country to PC user groups with permission to copy and charge a nominal fee for their efforts. I was still getting registration fees a few years after I stopped supporting the software, so that method clearly worked and there was nothing illegal about it. But there certainly would have been laws broken if those user groups tried to do the same with Lotus 1-2-3 or dBase!
Please tell me that I've misunderstood something here!
There is one other thing that I've noticed that people have not been mentioning. Yes, Linux and Solaris are free, so they're not valid comparisons just based on that. But no one seems to take into account anything about longevity or durability.
For example, anyone who has worked with Sun hardware knows that for the most part Sun servers are built like frickin' tanks. Even Sparc 10s and 20s are still in heavy use my a lot of major corporations for small tasks, like test servers, low-capacity web servers, file sharing, and so forth. Most WinTel systems - even servers - are built with a lot of off-the-shelf parts or come with parts that are not what one would call "high quality".
The UNIX market is not a commodity market, unlike the WinTel market. Most UNIX shops will keep beating the shit out of their UNIX hardware because they know that it can take the punishment and keep on chugging along. UNIX shops also know that you don't need a bazillion GHz just to run a database if it's configured properly. This also equates - or at least has equated until recently - to more expensive hardware. The bean counters *always* balk at that, regardless of the justification.
This is different than a lot of Windows shops. Most Windows shops keep having a need to upgrade because of the common curse of Windows: bloatware and ever increasing hardware requirements. Additionally, most of the Windows mindset equate GHz and number of CPUs with speed and efficiency. As we all know, that's not necesarily the case, but it's great marketing material for HP, Dell, and the WinTel server crowd to keep getting their hardware out the door.
I've seen this dozens (if not hundreds) of times in various organizations as a consultant. The ability to convince management to purchase a lot of less-expensive, new Windows equipment is much easier than trying to convince them to purchase fewer, more expensive UNIX servers.
This sales report is nothing but irrelevant fodder for future Microsoft FUD.
Okay, will someone explain to me why the parent was slammed as a "troll"? As I replied, the author of the Escapist article is most likely referring to himself in reference to a 1983 movie -- that's 23 years ago, folks -- from a U.S. network. Okay, he could have asked with a bit less attitiude, but there should be no surprise that people would not understand the reference.
Not everyone on Slashdot is from the U.S., and not everyone on Slashdot is old enough to remember some of the events in 1983 that would have such an impact on the TV psyche like "The Day After" did for a lot of people.
I'm from the U.S. and I remember when "The Day After" was shown on ABC. But at least I can give Slashdot users the benefit of the doubt that they're not all American thirty-somethings. Hopefully, metamoderation will slam that knucklehead appropriately.
Given the topic, he's probably referring to the made-for-TV movie The Day After, which was directed by Geek movie god, Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II). It was shown in 1983 on the ABC television network in the U.S. and showed what might happen in small-town Kansas after a nuclear holocaust.
My guess is that he was a kid when that movie first aired, which had a powerful impact on a lot of viewers back then, thus making him a "Day After" kid.
What's really sad is that a lot of people won't get that joke at all. Hopefully, you won't get too many "Offtopic" mods. Unfortunately, I don't have any mod points or I'd throw a +1 Funny your way.
For those not in the know, Realistic and Optimus are Radio Shack brand names.
Perry suggests that facilitating the sale to another company was his main reason for quitting the developer, saying to the Register, "If I'm an employee of Atari, then I'd be stepping all over them. This way, I'm representing a buyer. I can act swiftly and get buyers on the table... To be clear, I cannot sell the company but I can get publishers excited about the company enough to get a bidding war going on."
It sounds more like he's doing a combination parenting and "F*ck you, Atari!" role. I don't doubt that he wants to join back up after the sale, but this way avoids a clear conflict of interest. If he stayed, he'd have to do what's best for Atari, which is obviously not what's best for Shiny. This way, he can do what's best for a studio that is for all intents and purposes "his baby" so that it doesn't get sold from one slave-owner (Atari) to another, like EA. At least if it does get sold to a soulless institution like EA, he can try to get a better deal for Shiny than would otherwise be made if he had to represent Atari.
That doesn't sound like a power trip to me. It seems to be a reasonable action to take for someone who cares about an entity that he helped to create and to raise.
Sorry, but I don't buy that at all! Lame excuse.
on
Uwe Boll Smash!
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The source material and its "shallowness" are irrelevant. There are writers who could take a very basic story and with enough creativity to create an entire arc that is still relevant to the core story.
There is a lot that could have done with, for example, Bloodrayne. The background on her character - half-human, half-vampire - is great fodder for some interesting character development. Note that in most sci-fi shows, characters of mixed races are the ones that often get the most intersting character arcs. Look at Spock, Troi, and Seven of Nine in the "Star Trek" series and how they often ran into problems with being a mixed race, whether that's from biological issues, prejudice, or something else. (Okay, Seven wasn't quite a mixed race, but you get the idea.) Rayne could have had a very interesting character arc in the hands of a good writer, which Bloodrayne: The Movie did not have.
Her vengeance against those who murdered her mother certainly could have been expanded to involve some interesting twists and turns, particularly with the Nazi-era background of the original Bloodrayne. Exactly how did her mother die? Murder? Consequence of being raped by a vampire? How did Rayne find out who was responsible? Was her mother's murder really what triggered her rage against fellow dhampirs or is there some long-forgotten memory that is subconsciously driving her? Add a bit of "Indiana Jones"-style action and the Bloodrayne movie could have been very well done.
Instead, we get a piece of schlock that was nothing more than the Bloodrayne name and blades with some blood and guts. Oh, and a very-easy-on-the-eyes babe. Hey, is that Ben Kingsley? That Ghandi guy? Well, that certainly gives the movie credibility! (Not.) It was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly thought out.
The fact that its source was a video game cannot be more irrelevant.
Whoa ... wait a minute...
on
Uwe Boll Smash!
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let me get this straight.
We develop a fondness for a particular game. He gets the license then creates a movie that can only be described as a poorly-done "B" movie (yes, there are plenty of well-done "B" movies). Fans are greatly disappointed in what he did to the movie and by association the game. The fans voice their displeasure. Then he gets angry that fans are disappointed? What's wrong with this picture?!!!
What does he expect fans to do? Just say, "Oh, thank you! Thank you for converting a game to a movie that I was hoping more than anything to end right after the beginning credits started! We are so grateful!"
His views of the modern gamer and modern movie-goer is clearly so low as to be insulting. I've seen productions from amateur (read: still-in-film-school) movie makers that were wonderfully written with really impressive cinematogrphy and editing; I've also been on the crew of indepenent films that were fun to film and fun to watch because the director had a solid vision of what the scripts were trying to project. (No, not porn. Seriously!) If film students and amateur film makers can make entertaining movies on showstring budgets, there really is not much of an excuse for Boll (or any director) who has lots of funding behind him not to create a movie that's at least watchable.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this distorted view within a lot of directorial circles that (HIGH PROFILE STORY or STORY WITH STRONG FAN BASE) + ACKNOWLEDGED STARS = GUARANTEED SUCCESS. I present as proof of this misguided belief Gigli, Bloodrayne, and Battlefield: Earth to name a few.
Hey, Boll, don't let the gamepad hit you in the ass on the way out.
I buy a ton of hardware from NewEgg and I choose the 3-day FedEx option, only because most of their products ship from New Jersey and are at my door in 24 hours. But since we're not always home, we signed an agreement with FedEx that all deliveries are to be delivered to our one side door and they keep our signature on file. Up until that point, we had to sign every package at the front door. Now, FedEx leaves the package at our side door whether we're home or not and whether they need a signature or not. A bit risky, perhaps, but fortunately we live in a low-crime area that's predominantly occupied of non-geek, elderly people.:)
My only gripe with NewEgg is that, unlike those rebate-laden morons at TigerDirect, they do not have an agreement with UPromise. I'd love to have 2-4% of my NewEgg purchases go into a college fund for my kids, but I hate how just about everything on TigerDirect that I want to buy has a f*cking rebate attached to it.
In fairness, that also decribes the person that he's (poorly) mocking. TMM for some reason seems to have some narcissitic need to get first post on a significant quantity of Slashdot's articles every weekday. Yet a detractor posts a single, criticizing post and is told that he needs a life. Slight contradiction there, don't you think?
Yes, yes, it's off topic. I have karma to burn. But just because this view might be unpopular doesn't mean that it's not correct. Then again, this *is* Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Argh!! You're 100% correct. My bad. I think the joke was lost on the generation gap anyway. :)
There is nothing illegal about passive material or even designing a building that will block cell phone signals as long as they don't produce any signals on their own. Where the FCC would come into play is if these fibers were somehow transmitting an active jamming signal. I'm sure that the FCC's main concern is that active jamming might jam more than just its intended target. I can't say that I disagree with that concern.
:)
Someone else mentioned a Faraday cage, which might be great to implement with new buildings but would probably be unrealistic for existing buildings, depending on the nature of the business/organization.
For theatres and auditoriums, this is an excellent alternative, particularly since a lot of theatres and auditoriums could probably use a new coat of paint anyway.
Then it comes down to the definition of "appreciation". Does it encompass only the pleasure of stomping out spam, only the pleasure of possibly getting in shape, or both? I would think that if the idea is employed appropriately, there will be a continuing appreciation for it, particularly in those companies that might not have any kind of health/exercise area on-site.
People might appreciate it differently than we think. So, it's very possible that it won't be appreciated as briefly as we might.
And if the company has any kind of high turn-around, such as at a customer service site, there are always new people coming through the door to catch onto the gimmick.
So, I'm not dismissing this idea as quickly as others are.
Oh, for crying out loud. You're just being argumentative now for the sake of being argumentative.
Where is it written that there can't be a special area put aside somewhere for people to go to do this? Companies that have on-site gyms put them in their own room. So, I would expect any company that does a DDR-stress-reliever to do the same thing.
People like the novelty. Any real study would last long enough for the novelty to wear off.
... I like it!" { one eyebrow goes up }
Oh, really? And what if the people in the study start to see that they're getting healthier because of it?
"Hey, honey, you're looking more toned than before."
"I've been getting exercise stomping out spam."
"Really? Well
The next day...
"Hey, Jack! What's with the huge smile? And are you slightly hunched over?"
"Nevermind! Where's the spam? I need to stomp out more of it!"
Oh, stop it.
All that you'd need are volunteers inside the company who need a stress reliever. Not only would they be able to work out their frustrations in a physical manner, it would also be good physchological help. Pent up frustrations have been proven to have negative, physical reactions, so this could be a great way for employees to work it off.
Frustrated by your manager's micromanging? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Frustrated by your spouse or family members to the point that it's affecting your ability to work efficiently? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Frustrated by your next-door-cubicle-neighbor's incessant use of the speakerphone? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Frustrated by people trying desperately to get first post on Slashdot for reasons that no one seems to comprehend? Dance it off (and help to get rid of spam).
Hell, even just basic aerobic exercise that normal cubicle dwellers would not get would be motivation enough. I know that I wouldn't mind stomping out some spam for about 15 minutes after lunch to burn some of it off. That would be 15 minutes more exercise than I'd normally get and I'd love every minute of it, knowing that I'm thwarting the potential success of those low-life spammers.
Make it a volunteer-only project; make the rules clear that if you have a coronary -- well, you volunteered.
Stamp out spam, get some exercise, lose weight, release negative emotions, tone up, do some good for yourself and the computing community - at the same time. Sounds like a win-win to me.
I thought that the effects of flying through a black hole were known since 1979! In fact, if you zoom in on this massive image, you can just barely make out the survivors of the Nostromo! (Okay, that was lame, but I'm shocked that I appear to be the first to make reference to the movie.)
In an effort to burn out their server properly
Okay, that was funny.
Anyone who intentionally hides ALL posts by someone because of a FEW posts (although admittedly TMM has posted more than a few annoying posts) is engaging in human stupdidity as far as I'm concerned. I still see it as a form of censorship, even if it's self-imposed, because the fear or dislike of a few is preventing the rest from being seen.
Am I stretching the term a bit? Perhaps. That doesn't mean that I have to conform.
That might be true, however, we're all here on Slashdot voluntarily. We know the risks of reading posts. People that we just don't agree with are part of the deal. And if you can't deal with someone else's posts, you're under no obligation to read them nor are you under any obligation to be on Slashdot.
Again, just my opinion that happens to differ from the Slashdot groupthink, which is a horrible thing, I know.
Seriously though, couldn't Taco just make this guy an editor or something, because he first posts waaayy too much.
I remember seeing a suspiciously anonymous post suggesting the same thing, praising TMM like the second Slashdot coming. Needless to say, I immediately assumed that he was the author hiding under AC. If you think that becoming an editor isn't already TMM's perogative, based on how he spends IMHO too much time desperate to provide links and first posts, then you're playing right into his hands.
I think his energies would be better spent on proof reading article summaries rather than hovering over a constantly refreshing main-page.
And you think that he's the only one that fits that category? I'm sure that thousands of people do the same thing. TMM only has an advantage because he's a subscriber.
Yeah, yeah, I'm continuing an off-topic thread, but it had to be said.
Marking anyone as a foe is nothing more than Slashdot hypocrisy. It's absolutely amazing to me how so many people on Slashdot decry any kind of censorship, whether it be {insert corporation}'s poilcy with China, U.S. government censorship, or whatever. But then in the same breath can turn around and say "Just mark him 'Foe'!"
Censorship is censorship, whether it's done by a corporate entity, a government, or by a "Foe" list. Besides, it's ridiculous to censor an entire person just because of a few posts that you might not like. Who know what other posts are worth reading that you're no longer seeing because of that that "Foe" mark.
I am getting pissed TMM's karma whoring and mind-baffling need for a first post as well, and I could just as easily mark his as "Foe". I won't because occasionally he does post something that is actually worth reading (not often, I grant you), and I think it's hypocritical of the Slashdot groupthink to suggest that anyone should use "Foe". As far as I'm concerned, any time you mark someone as "Foe" you're saying, "I'm too closed minded to be able to deal with a differing opinion from mine, so I'm just going to censor you entirely."
Hell, we're not talking about spam here -- although sometimes I think TMM is trying to get close to it.
Just my two cents. Convert to your local currency as necessary.
This could lead to some great human programming! Think about it!
.NET yogurt because it's too difficult to swallow.
:)
New GEEK YOGURT with Enzymatic-Action (TM)! Comes in new exciting arrangements!
Now you can become a Perl expert with our Perl Programming yogurt! Comes in the convenient beer flavor!
Our new BFG2000 yogurt with Hyper-Enzymatic-Action (TM) will help you to maintain focus and alertness during those long, overnight CS or BF2 sessions! Comes in Jolt and Penguin Mint flavors!
Our C++ yogurt doesn't come in one package but instead comes in several small packages that work together!
Our Increase Your Attractiveness To Girls yogurt is still in development, but we're working on it. It's not as easy as we thought.
We've given up on our
Increase your memory with our RAM super-enzymatic yogurt! Just remember that you'll need to eat a good helping of this every year or so as life's base requirements keep increasing.
Finally, our Microsoft yogurt with BSOD enzymes with help you to learn to do new and amazing things that you've been able to do for a long time with competitors' yogurts, but now you won't have the extra expense of buying theirs! (Why, no, that's not anti-competitive. Why do you ask?)
Hey, it's Friday. Gotta have some fun.
It's a simple failure of comprehension of the task that they have been asked to do. They thought it was simple, but it's not, and they're understandably in shock at that fact. Okay, you and me understand copyright, and we knew this from the beginning, but this person clearly didn't. That is the disturbing part, and shows that the message being put forth by the RIAA is taking greater hold. Violating copyright is indeed illegal, but what constitutes that violation is more complex than simply burning CD's and selling (or giving) them to other people. The message they're pushing is that it's always wrong, and that message is getting through.
:)
:)
I alluded to this in a previous reply, but it deserves another post.
This is nothing more than the reversal of the "I didn't know it was illegal" exucse that some people try to get away with. We're expected to know the law and ignorance is not an excuse. The same should be applied to our police officers. "We didn't know it was legal" should not be an excuse.
Consider this also. Many police departments assign policement based on their specialties. For example, they're not about to send an officer with no drug enforcement experience or training to go on a major drug bust. The same should happen with copyright. Find those officers that are computer-saavy and make sure that they're called in when a potential copyright issue comes about so that they can adequately determine if there is indeed a copyright issue. If there are no officers with that knowledge, train them! Bring in a knowledgeable computer consultant to train them on how to spot legal as well as illegal software and teach them about the various types of free software that are legal. Sure, they can't be expected to memorize the Sourceforge database, but teach them the most popular names and why it's legal to sell copies.
Ignorance of the FOSS is no excuse.
But that's irrelevant. Just because he doesn't know that one is legal doesn't mean that he can't enforce the law on what's illegal. If that person can produce documentation, such as the EULA, that clearly states that selling a piece of software is legal, then he is exonerated from prosecution for selling that software only.
If someone is selling legal copies of software A and selling illegal copies of software B, then he can still be prosecuted for selling software B. The statement that I'm talking about makes it seem as though any legal selling automatically nullifies prosecutorial action for selling software illegally at the same time, which is ludicrous.
This sounds a lot like the "I didn't know it was illegal" excuse except from the policeman's point of view -- "I didn't know it was legal." The citizens are expected to know what's legal and what's not. There is no reason to not expect the same from our law enforcement officers.
Will someone please tell me what the hell this is supposed to mean?!
If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation.
This is one of the most asinine things I've heard in a long time! Just because one piece of software says that it can be distributed even though it's free does not mean that suddenly anti-piracy legislation is unenforceable! In fact, anti-piracy legislation does not even come into play here because there was no piracy going on! Either that quote is being taken way out of context or they are actually trying to say that not being able to prosecute those who copy Firefox means that they won't be able to prosecute those who copy Windows, Photoshop, or other programs that clearly fall under anti-piracy legislation!
In fact, this kind of distribution and marketing has been going on since the Commodore 64 days! Free software would be distributed for about $2 per floppy disk at local computer meets to cover the cost of media and duplication. In fact, that's how a lot of PC shareware got distributed. I used to write some shareware apps that were free to distrubte, just not free to use. I sent disks all over the country to PC user groups with permission to copy and charge a nominal fee for their efforts. I was still getting registration fees a few years after I stopped supporting the software, so that method clearly worked and there was nothing illegal about it. But there certainly would have been laws broken if those user groups tried to do the same with Lotus 1-2-3 or dBase!
Please tell me that I've misunderstood something here!
There is one other thing that I've noticed that people have not been mentioning. Yes, Linux and Solaris are free, so they're not valid comparisons just based on that. But no one seems to take into account anything about longevity or durability.
For example, anyone who has worked with Sun hardware knows that for the most part Sun servers are built like frickin' tanks. Even Sparc 10s and 20s are still in heavy use my a lot of major corporations for small tasks, like test servers, low-capacity web servers, file sharing, and so forth. Most WinTel systems - even servers - are built with a lot of off-the-shelf parts or come with parts that are not what one would call "high quality".
The UNIX market is not a commodity market, unlike the WinTel market. Most UNIX shops will keep beating the shit out of their UNIX hardware because they know that it can take the punishment and keep on chugging along. UNIX shops also know that you don't need a bazillion GHz just to run a database if it's configured properly. This also equates - or at least has equated until recently - to more expensive hardware. The bean counters *always* balk at that, regardless of the justification.
This is different than a lot of Windows shops. Most Windows shops keep having a need to upgrade because of the common curse of Windows: bloatware and ever increasing hardware requirements. Additionally, most of the Windows mindset equate GHz and number of CPUs with speed and efficiency. As we all know, that's not necesarily the case, but it's great marketing material for HP, Dell, and the WinTel server crowd to keep getting their hardware out the door. I've seen this dozens (if not hundreds) of times in various organizations as a consultant. The ability to convince management to purchase a lot of less-expensive, new Windows equipment is much easier than trying to convince them to purchase fewer, more expensive UNIX servers.
This sales report is nothing but irrelevant fodder for future Microsoft FUD.
Okay, will someone explain to me why the parent was slammed as a "troll"? As I replied, the author of the Escapist article is most likely referring to himself in reference to a 1983 movie -- that's 23 years ago, folks -- from a U.S. network. Okay, he could have asked with a bit less attitiude, but there should be no surprise that people would not understand the reference.
Not everyone on Slashdot is from the U.S., and not everyone on Slashdot is old enough to remember some of the events in 1983 that would have such an impact on the TV psyche like "The Day After" did for a lot of people.
I'm from the U.S. and I remember when "The Day After" was shown on ABC. But at least I can give Slashdot users the benefit of the doubt that they're not all American thirty-somethings. Hopefully, metamoderation will slam that knucklehead appropriately.
Given the topic, he's probably referring to the made-for-TV movie The Day After , which was directed by Geek movie god, Nicholas Meyer (Star Trek II). It was shown in 1983 on the ABC television network in the U.S. and showed what might happen in small-town Kansas after a nuclear holocaust.
My guess is that he was a kid when that movie first aired, which had a powerful impact on a lot of viewers back then, thus making him a "Day After" kid.
What's really sad is that a lot of people won't get that joke at all. Hopefully, you won't get too many "Offtopic" mods. Unfortunately, I don't have any mod points or I'd throw a +1 Funny your way.
For those not in the know, Realistic and Optimus are Radio Shack brand names.
From TFA:
... To be clear, I cannot sell the company but I can get publishers excited about the company enough to get a bidding war going on."
Perry suggests that facilitating the sale to another company was his main reason for quitting the developer, saying to the Register, "If I'm an employee of Atari, then I'd be stepping all over them. This way, I'm representing a buyer. I can act swiftly and get buyers on the table
It sounds more like he's doing a combination parenting and "F*ck you, Atari!" role. I don't doubt that he wants to join back up after the sale, but this way avoids a clear conflict of interest. If he stayed, he'd have to do what's best for Atari, which is obviously not what's best for Shiny. This way, he can do what's best for a studio that is for all intents and purposes "his baby" so that it doesn't get sold from one slave-owner (Atari) to another, like EA. At least if it does get sold to a soulless institution like EA, he can try to get a better deal for Shiny than would otherwise be made if he had to represent Atari.
That doesn't sound like a power trip to me. It seems to be a reasonable action to take for someone who cares about an entity that he helped to create and to raise.
The source material and its "shallowness" are irrelevant. There are writers who could take a very basic story and with enough creativity to create an entire arc that is still relevant to the core story.
There is a lot that could have done with, for example, Bloodrayne. The background on her character - half-human, half-vampire - is great fodder for some interesting character development. Note that in most sci-fi shows, characters of mixed races are the ones that often get the most intersting character arcs. Look at Spock, Troi, and Seven of Nine in the "Star Trek" series and how they often ran into problems with being a mixed race, whether that's from biological issues, prejudice, or something else. (Okay, Seven wasn't quite a mixed race, but you get the idea.) Rayne could have had a very interesting character arc in the hands of a good writer, which Bloodrayne: The Movie did not have.
Her vengeance against those who murdered her mother certainly could have been expanded to involve some interesting twists and turns, particularly with the Nazi-era background of the original Bloodrayne. Exactly how did her mother die? Murder? Consequence of being raped by a vampire? How did Rayne find out who was responsible? Was her mother's murder really what triggered her rage against fellow dhampirs or is there some long-forgotten memory that is subconsciously driving her? Add a bit of "Indiana Jones"-style action and the Bloodrayne movie could have been very well done.
Instead, we get a piece of schlock that was nothing more than the Bloodrayne name and blades with some blood and guts. Oh, and a very-easy-on-the-eyes babe. Hey, is that Ben Kingsley? That Ghandi guy? Well, that certainly gives the movie credibility! (Not.) It was poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly thought out.
The fact that its source was a video game cannot be more irrelevant.
Let me get this straight.
We develop a fondness for a particular game. He gets the license then creates a movie that can only be described as a poorly-done "B" movie (yes, there are plenty of well-done "B" movies). Fans are greatly disappointed in what he did to the movie and by association the game. The fans voice their displeasure. Then he gets angry that fans are disappointed? What's wrong with this picture?!!!
What does he expect fans to do? Just say, "Oh, thank you! Thank you for converting a game to a movie that I was hoping more than anything to end right after the beginning credits started! We are so grateful!"
His views of the modern gamer and modern movie-goer is clearly so low as to be insulting. I've seen productions from amateur (read: still-in-film-school) movie makers that were wonderfully written with really impressive cinematogrphy and editing; I've also been on the crew of indepenent films that were fun to film and fun to watch because the director had a solid vision of what the scripts were trying to project. (No, not porn. Seriously!) If film students and amateur film makers can make entertaining movies on showstring budgets, there really is not much of an excuse for Boll (or any director) who has lots of funding behind him not to create a movie that's at least watchable.
Unfortunately, there seems to be this distorted view within a lot of directorial circles that (HIGH PROFILE STORY or STORY WITH STRONG FAN BASE) + ACKNOWLEDGED STARS = GUARANTEED SUCCESS. I present as proof of this misguided belief Gigli, Bloodrayne, and Battlefield: Earth to name a few.
Hey, Boll, don't let the gamepad hit you in the ass on the way out.
I buy a ton of hardware from NewEgg and I choose the 3-day FedEx option, only because most of their products ship from New Jersey and are at my door in 24 hours. But since we're not always home, we signed an agreement with FedEx that all deliveries are to be delivered to our one side door and they keep our signature on file. Up until that point, we had to sign every package at the front door. Now, FedEx leaves the package at our side door whether we're home or not and whether they need a signature or not. A bit risky, perhaps, but fortunately we live in a low-crime area that's predominantly occupied of non-geek, elderly people. :)
My only gripe with NewEgg is that, unlike those rebate-laden morons at TigerDirect, they do not have an agreement with UPromise. I'd love to have 2-4% of my NewEgg purchases go into a college fund for my kids, but I hate how just about everything on TigerDirect that I want to buy has a f*cking rebate attached to it.
In fairness, that also decribes the person that he's (poorly) mocking. TMM for some reason seems to have some narcissitic need to get first post on a significant quantity of Slashdot's articles every weekday. Yet a detractor posts a single, criticizing post and is told that he needs a life. Slight contradiction there, don't you think?
Yes, yes, it's off topic. I have karma to burn. But just because this view might be unpopular doesn't mean that it's not correct. Then again, this *is* Slashdot.
Hey, I never said that I was into the console scene. :)