Or the irony that said documents are Yahoo's private matters and this we are infringing on Yahoo's rights to keep them private. Privacy works both ways.
If then, the issue is not about privacy, but biasedness. It's the same issue of how past "accused" tends to be discriminated without good reason. (Especially when one has been proven innocent, but the mark is already left)
Offtopic. Your issue is relevant for that other topic about the sight-disabled suing Sony (which we already had a lengthy discussion about, and linked in the topic itself), but this is about giving ratings to games based on specific disabilities, which is a much better alternative.
VR isn't meant to train those types of situations. However, it can help in training situations which replication IRL would be cost prohibitive and/or life-risking.
Example: To train infantry IRL, you need to handle weapon safety, allocation and maintenance, field injuries (if any), transportation and etc. Then if you want to train in a critical situation, you have to factor in the cost of replicating said situations. Costs are further increased if you are trying to train vehicular units, regardless of air, land or sea.
Not saying that there shouldn't be any in-field training, but it should be balanced with VR training to reduce costs and increase training cycles.
I'm more interested in Chrome OS being offered in multiple devices. If the cloud works as I think it should, it means that all those devices should interface in a similar form. For instance: Buy a music file, and your music player downloads directly, without having to go through your netbook (because for all intents and purposes, they are the same). Your GIMP program, detecting your other cloud devices aren't being utilized, borrows some computing power to do a heavy render. Your text editor is automatically "synced" between all your devices.
I believe though that in the end there still has to be some aspect of offline capability, but it would be offered in an auto-sync format, or in how offline web pages work.
A better argument would be why buy the games that you already own, but that isn't the point here. Parent asked Nintendo to sell games or shut up, Nintendo is already selling games.
Not to mention your perfectly good computers can't emulate Nintendo hardware perfectly last I checked.
The games demonstrated in the video (Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros 3) are both available as a Wii download, so there is no excuse for Nokia still.
By your definition, Sony and Microsoft isn't that hostile to emulation, since they did use emulation to maintain backwards compatibility for a while. (granted they did stop them some time later).
But we're not referring to those kinds of emulation. Refer to that handy link I added.
That or I don't live where you do; There wasn't any game rental stores in Singapore back then as far as I know. Not that there was any purpose for such, considering the piracy rates back then.
There is a difference though, most of those clones would fall under fair use, since they're non-commercial and can possibly be argued to be educational (for the programmer) as well. Nokia has no such argument.
How Does Nintendo Feel About the Emergence of Video Game Emulators?
The introduction of emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers. As is the case with any business or industry, when its products become available for free, the revenue stream supporting that industry is threatened. Such emulators have the potential to significantly damage a worldwide entertainment software industry which generates over $15 billion annually, and tens of thousands of jobs.
What Does Nintendo Think of the Argument that Emulators are Actually Good for Nintendo Because it Promotes the Nintendo Brand to PC Users and Leads to More Sales?
Distribution of an emulator developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software hurts Nintendo's goodwill, the millions of dollars invested in research & development and marketing by Nintendo and its licensees. Substantial damages are caused to Nintendo and its licensees. It is irrelevant whether or not someone profits from the distribution of an emulator. The emulator promotes the play of illegal ROMs , NOT authentic games. Thus, not only does it not lead to more sales, it has the opposite effect and purpose.
How Come Nintendo Does Not Take Steps Towards Legitimizing Nintendo Emulators?
Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate.
People Making Nintendo Emulators and Nintendo ROMs are Helping Publishers by Making Old Games Available that are No Longer Being Sold by the Copyright Owner. This Does Not Hurt Anyone and Allows Gamers to Play Old Favorites. What's the Problem?
The problem is that it's illegal. Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets.
"Most publishers allow individual title usage, provided that the user is in possession of the original title."
This might explain why their platforms failed so much (well, other than side-talking and whatnot). I have not really heard of any major publisher that allows copies of their titles (disregarding software officially released free) so I don't know who gave Nokia that info.
Not to mention this is NINTENDO. If there's a single game company who is most likely to oppose emulation, it's Nintendo.
However, the whole issue of privacy is the issue of personal data being abused. Without fear of abuse of data, there is no reason to fear loss of privacy. And thus far, Google seems to be on track with the "no-data-abuse" aspect.
Granted it's based on faith and trust in Google, but there hasn't been much to contest such.
(not that there is nothing though)
Inversely, once can treat it such that all organisms have the potential to become a virus when associated in the right conditions, and humans have this innate issue that there is no wrong condition.
Yes, but people expect free speech from Google. Google is already on a very thin line between "Neutral" and "Evil", and a misstep would make them more associated with Microsoft.
It's still not counting, though it can reproduce the effects. A calculator doesn't actually count (it's just bit switching), but it reproduces the effect. Granted it means that whatever it's doing can simulate the effect of basic counting, but it in no way represents the understanding of numbers, which would be the implication of counting.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the irony that said documents are Yahoo's private matters and this we are infringing on Yahoo's rights to keep them private. Privacy works both ways.
If then, the issue is not about privacy, but biasedness. It's the same issue of how past "accused" tends to be discriminated without good reason. (Especially when one has been proven innocent, but the mark is already left)
Just curious, that's all.
Offtopic. Your issue is relevant for that other topic about the sight-disabled suing Sony (which we already had a lengthy discussion about, and linked in the topic itself), but this is about giving ratings to games based on specific disabilities, which is a much better alternative.
VR isn't meant to train those types of situations. However, it can help in training situations which replication IRL would be cost prohibitive and/or life-risking.
Example: To train infantry IRL, you need to handle weapon safety, allocation and maintenance, field injuries (if any), transportation and etc. Then if you want to train in a critical situation, you have to factor in the cost of replicating said situations. Costs are further increased if you are trying to train vehicular units, regardless of air, land or sea.
Not saying that there shouldn't be any in-field training, but it should be balanced with VR training to reduce costs and increase training cycles.
It's relevant not because it's new, but because it's Microsoft.
I wouldn't say the cult is worthless. I'd say it's worth billions, or more. (even if the billions are earned on questionable morals).
I'm more interested in Chrome OS being offered in multiple devices. If the cloud works as I think it should, it means that all those devices should interface in a similar form. For instance: Buy a music file, and your music player downloads directly, without having to go through your netbook (because for all intents and purposes, they are the same). Your GIMP program, detecting your other cloud devices aren't being utilized, borrows some computing power to do a heavy render. Your text editor is automatically "synced" between all your devices.
I believe though that in the end there still has to be some aspect of offline capability, but it would be offered in an auto-sync format, or in how offline web pages work.
They already are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_VC
Unfortunately wrong. ZSNES does not fully support the SPC7110.
A better argument would be why buy the games that you already own, but that isn't the point here. Parent asked Nintendo to sell games or shut up, Nintendo is already selling games.
Not to mention your perfectly good computers can't emulate Nintendo hardware perfectly last I checked.
The games demonstrated in the video (Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros 3) are both available as a Wii download, so there is no excuse for Nokia still.
By your definition, Sony and Microsoft isn't that hostile to emulation, since they did use emulation to maintain backwards compatibility for a while. (granted they did stop them some time later).
But we're not referring to those kinds of emulation. Refer to that handy link I added.
Apparently they did it wrong then. Sounds like it's more of spent on improving work-flow/patient-flow.
That or I don't live where you do; There wasn't any game rental stores in Singapore back then as far as I know. Not that there was any purpose for such, considering the piracy rates back then.
There is a difference though, most of those clones would fall under fair use, since they're non-commercial and can possibly be argued to be educational (for the programmer) as well. Nokia has no such argument.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#roms
How Does Nintendo Feel About the Emergence of Video Game Emulators?
The introduction of emulators created to play illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual property rights of video game developers. As is the case with any business or industry, when its products become available for free, the revenue stream supporting that industry is threatened. Such emulators have the potential to significantly damage a worldwide entertainment software industry which generates over $15 billion annually, and tens of thousands of jobs.
What Does Nintendo Think of the Argument that Emulators are Actually Good for Nintendo Because it Promotes the Nintendo Brand to PC Users and Leads to More Sales?
Distribution of an emulator developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software hurts Nintendo's goodwill, the millions of dollars invested in research & development and marketing by Nintendo and its licensees. Substantial damages are caused to Nintendo and its licensees. It is irrelevant whether or not someone profits from the distribution of an emulator. The emulator promotes the play of illegal ROMs , NOT authentic games. Thus, not only does it not lead to more sales, it has the opposite effect and purpose.
How Come Nintendo Does Not Take Steps Towards Legitimizing Nintendo Emulators?
Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy. That's like asking why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy. It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate.
People Making Nintendo Emulators and Nintendo ROMs are Helping Publishers by Making Old Games Available that are No Longer Being Sold by the Copyright Owner. This Does Not Hurt Anyone and Allows Gamers to Play Old Favorites. What's the Problem?
The problem is that it's illegal. Copyrights and trademarks of games are corporate assets. If these vintage titles are available far and wide, it undermines the value of this intellectual property and adversely affects the right owner. In addition, the assumption that the games involved are vintage or nostalgia games is incorrect. Nintendo is famous for bringing back to life its popular characters for its newer systems, for example, Mario and Donkey Kong have enjoyed their adventures on all Nintendo platforms, going from coin-op machines to our latest hardware platforms. As a copyright owner, and creator of such famous characters, only Nintendo has the right to benefit from such valuable assets.
[Citation Please]
Somehow I doubt that, considering that cartridges aren't exactly the most "backup-friendly" hardware I've seen.
"Most publishers allow individual title usage, provided that the user is in possession of the original title."
This might explain why their platforms failed so much (well, other than side-talking and whatnot). I have not really heard of any major publisher that allows copies of their titles (disregarding software officially released free) so I don't know who gave Nokia that info.
Not to mention this is NINTENDO. If there's a single game company who is most likely to oppose emulation, it's Nintendo.
So, what connections are formed when one learns to drive a motor vehicle?
Yes.
However, the whole issue of privacy is the issue of personal data being abused. Without fear of abuse of data, there is no reason to fear loss of privacy. And thus far, Google seems to be on track with the "no-data-abuse" aspect. Granted it's based on faith and trust in Google, but there hasn't been much to contest such. (not that there is nothing though)
Inversely, once can treat it such that all organisms have the potential to become a virus when associated in the right conditions, and humans have this innate issue that there is no wrong condition.
Yes, but people expect free speech from Google. Google is already on a very thin line between "Neutral" and "Evil", and a misstep would make them more associated with Microsoft.
It's still not counting, though it can reproduce the effects. A calculator doesn't actually count (it's just bit switching), but it reproduces the effect. Granted it means that whatever it's doing can simulate the effect of basic counting, but it in no way represents the understanding of numbers, which would be the implication of counting.