Call bullshit all you like. All area transitions and save states are to be socked away to memory. As long as you don't turn off your Xbox, you should be able to play all the way throguh the game without saving.
That occured to me, but only works if your game is very short. Puzzle games come to mind, but what about saving high scores? What about game options? I still think the OP was a troll, and so are you.
I call bullshit. Name the game, the developer, or the mechanism by which the execs propose you do without a mem card. And no, I don't believe that anyone is going to use passcodes in this day and age.
On the other hand, I suppose it's a bit like trademarks - protest every unsanctioned use, or (possibly) lose it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot "lose" a copyright until you've been dead for 70 years. (It's 90 years for work-for-hire, but it was never yours in the first place.)
WTF? Nintendo didn't create the analog controller, but they certainly popularized its usage in console game systems. They didn't exactly create the 3D platformer either (there were a number of 3D platformers released at the same time), but theirs was the only one that featured unrestricted movement in most levels. (If I am wrong, correct me. I know Crash was on rails at least 90% of the time, and I think that NiGHTS was, too, but I might be wrong.)
I'm just having a hard time understanding how anyone could mod the grandparent insightful (an Emmy is worthless) gets modded insightful, while the parent gets modded as a troll.
I've been copying IP and sharing little pieces with others since I installed a bittorrent client. The owners seem to agree since I never got an optout request.
I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.
Actually, the full cost of a cinema ticket ($8ish dollars where I live) would not be a bad price for a high-quality non-DRM'd movie. Consider that if you went to the theater, you'd have to pay for two tickets, unless the wife is young enough to get in for free.;) You'd also pay ridiculous prices for sodas, popcorn, and candy at the theater.
Correct me if I'm wrong: 1) Google takes the entire book, and with or without the author's permission, copies it (to Google's own personal harddrives).
Personal harddrives? Google's a corporation, not a human being. Authors can opt-out if they want to.
2)My understanding is that they are "raiding" libraries, and perhaps not necessarily even buying a copy of every book they do this with.
Wrong. They're not raiding libraries, the libraries are working with them. And since these books are coming from several major university libraries, no, they're not buying any copies.
3) They make only bits of it available, but in fact, a person could, with proper searching, get the whole book eventually.
The same is true for Amazon.com, but nobody's time is worth so little that they're willing to do this.
My understanding of Fair Use means only a small part of a book can be "quoted". Given that maybe it's okay for Google to copy the books if they want, they are, however, effectively making the entire book available.
Extract the entire text of a 300-page novel from Google and then tell me how easily available it was.
It would be something like having a thousand reviewers quote one thousandth of the same book. Reading all the reviews would give you the whole book. Only, it's not a thousand reviewers, but in this case just one - Google.
Again, is your time worthless? Will you sit in front of your computer for ten hours to extract the text of a book that costs $8?
I have a problem with their "Opt-out" presumption. In general I think it should be "Opt-in".
Why? Explain exactly how this is going to harm authors. And don't tell me that anyone is going to spend hours extracting the text of a book, especially when that text is likely to be presented as images, just like Amazon.com.
Finally, it doesn't matter whether the authors will ultimately profit from Google doing this or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is either legal or it is not. Here is a bad analogy: A maid breaks into my house and cleans everything up and then leaves. It doesn't matter that the maid's actions ultimately benefitted me (I got a clean house), breaking into my house is illegal.
Your bad analogy proves nothing, except perhaps that laws are more important to you than ethics. Do libraries need to ask for permission to loan out books?
I was in a game crazy a week or so ago, and saw a man who was at LEAST 70 buying video games and anxiously asking the clerks when this and that would be out... He was clearly buying them for himself as he knew the plots to most of the final fantasy games:) Very weird, very cool.
I suffer from accelerated decrepitude, you insensitve clod!
Use one-time pads for all your online communications. Of course, these are no good if you send them via an ordinary electronic medium. You need physical contact with the person who's getting the pads to ensure a secure exchange.
This wouldn't be too difficult to do--you could print normal-looking business cards with a short key printed on the back in UV-reactive ink. (That's invisible ink to those of you in Rio Linda.)
As for meeting the people you need to give pads to, need I remind you that this is Slashdot? I'll see most of you at the next big scifi/anime/gaming/tentacle porn convention.
As reported, an A4 sized page takes only 3 to 5 seconds to scan, and it is causing copyright concerns.
Really? It only takes one second to photograph an A4 size page with a film camera. Even worse, I hear that anyone can make a film camera with just a cardboard box and a pin. We'd better keep an eye out for info-terrorists running around with Improvised Photographic Devices!
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing. One time I saw mpeg artifacts in my field of vision when I was awake. I cut back on the dvds for a while after that.
Call bullshit all you like. All area transitions and save states are to be socked away to memory. As long as you don't turn off your Xbox, you should be able to play all the way throguh the game without saving.
That occured to me, but only works if your game is very short. Puzzle games come to mind, but what about saving high scores? What about game options? I still think the OP was a troll, and so are you.
Wow, that's like, so totally relevant.
/. user FidelCastro.
It's not irrelevant. He's trolling. Note that his name is very similar to non-troll
Like, oh my god.
Never, ever, ever say that here. Ever. >_
I call bullshit. Name the game, the developer, or the mechanism by which the execs propose you do without a mem card. And no, I don't believe that anyone is going to use passcodes in this day and age.
On the other hand, I suppose it's a bit like trademarks - protest every unsanctioned use, or (possibly) lose it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot "lose" a copyright until you've been dead for 70 years. (It's 90 years for work-for-hire, but it was never yours in the first place.)
I read somewhere that Brunei has a substantial ex-pat population. English is one of the three major languages spoken there, too.
That's the only game that'll ever convince me to buy an Xbox. Too bad it was an April Fools joke.
WTF? Nintendo didn't create the analog controller, but they certainly popularized its usage in console game systems. They didn't exactly create the 3D platformer either (there were a number of 3D platformers released at the same time), but theirs was the only one that featured unrestricted movement in most levels. (If I am wrong, correct me. I know Crash was on rails at least 90% of the time, and I think that NiGHTS was, too, but I might be wrong.)
I'm just having a hard time understanding how anyone could mod the grandparent insightful (an Emmy is worthless) gets modded insightful, while the parent gets modded as a troll.
It is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated, and gains many of the same protections human citizens do.
Unfortunate, isn't it?
Most can run with a bare amount of heatsink and fanless, unlike today's genital scorching PC's.
Been tea-bagging the ol' heatsink, eh? Watch out for the fan blades.
I've been copying IP and sharing little pieces with others since I installed a bittorrent client. The owners seem to agree since I never got an optout request.
I believe you're looking for this story.
...is to arrange for your church's website to be slashdotted.
In Soviet Russia, dupes post you!
I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.
;) You'd also pay ridiculous prices for sodas, popcorn, and candy at the theater.
Actually, the full cost of a cinema ticket ($8ish dollars where I live) would not be a bad price for a high-quality non-DRM'd movie. Consider that if you went to the theater, you'd have to pay for two tickets, unless the wife is young enough to get in for free.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) Google takes the entire book, and with or without the author's permission, copies it (to Google's own personal harddrives).
Personal harddrives? Google's a corporation, not a human being. Authors can opt-out if they want to.
2)My understanding is that they are "raiding" libraries, and perhaps not necessarily even buying a copy of every book they do this with.
Wrong. They're not raiding libraries, the libraries are working with them. And since these books are coming from several major university libraries, no, they're not buying any copies.
3) They make only bits of it available, but in fact, a person could, with proper searching, get the whole book eventually.
The same is true for Amazon.com, but nobody's time is worth so little that they're willing to do this.
My understanding of Fair Use means only a small part of a book can be "quoted". Given that maybe it's okay for Google to copy the books if they want, they are, however, effectively making the entire book available.
Extract the entire text of a 300-page novel from Google and then tell me how easily available it was.
It would be something like having a thousand reviewers quote one thousandth of the same book. Reading all the reviews would give you the whole book. Only, it's not a thousand reviewers, but in this case just one - Google.
Again, is your time worthless? Will you sit in front of your computer for ten hours to extract the text of a book that costs $8?
I have a problem with their "Opt-out" presumption. In general I think it should be "Opt-in".
Why? Explain exactly how this is going to harm authors. And don't tell me that anyone is going to spend hours extracting the text of a book, especially when that text is likely to be presented as images, just like Amazon.com.
Finally, it doesn't matter whether the authors will ultimately profit from Google doing this or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is either legal or it is not. Here is a bad analogy: A maid breaks into my house and cleans everything up and then leaves. It doesn't matter that the maid's actions ultimately benefitted me (I got a clean house), breaking into my house is illegal.
Your bad analogy proves nothing, except perhaps that laws are more important to you than ethics. Do libraries need to ask for permission to loan out books?
I was in a game crazy a week or so ago, and saw a man who was at LEAST 70 buying video games and anxiously asking the clerks when this and that would be out ... He was clearly buying them for himself as he knew the plots to most of the final fantasy games :) Very weird, very cool.
I suffer from accelerated decrepitude, you insensitve clod!
i'm sure its evolutionarilly necessary for our survival as a species for such short-sightedness to reign in the long run
Why?
Eight to fourteen percent. Even on iTunes, where the distribution costs are almost zero.
If it is, well... I've chosen to do without (which is a royal pain).
You don't have to do without.
I, for one, welcome our ring-bearing, middle east lord!
Use one-time pads for all your online communications. Of course, these are no good if you send them via an ordinary electronic medium. You need physical contact with the person who's getting the pads to ensure a secure exchange.
This wouldn't be too difficult to do--you could print normal-looking business cards with a short key printed on the back in UV-reactive ink. (That's invisible ink to those of you in Rio Linda.)
As for meeting the people you need to give pads to, need I remind you that this is Slashdot? I'll see most of you at the next big scifi/anime/gaming/tentacle porn convention.
(the mobo doesn't have to be great, nore the ram)
Noooo, you don't need good hardware for a fileserver. Stability and data integrity don't matter at all. [/sarcasm]
Dimwit.
That is wrong on so many levels.
Interesting. Looks like it would be easy to use, since this kind of motion is second nature to most /.ers.
As reported, an A4 sized page takes only 3 to 5 seconds to scan, and it is causing copyright concerns.
Really? It only takes one second to photograph an A4 size page with a film camera. Even worse, I hear that anyone can make a film camera with just a cardboard box and a pin. We'd better keep an eye out for info-terrorists running around with Improvised Photographic Devices!