Considering that PS2s are still selling (strangely) well and getting new game releases, it's unlikely Sony will restore BC (even if only software emulation) to the PS3 platform.
That still doesn't make business sense. Wouldn't they want people to migrate to the PS3? A PS3 sale is worth a lot more to Sony than a PS2 sale - what with the extra profits from the Playstation Store, higher-priced games, and royalties from Blu-Ray movie sales. Besides, if that was the logic, why did the original PS3 have PS2 compatibility at launch?
Some people aren't completely socially inept and have other people in the car with them who can answer the damn phone pretty safely.
It has nothing to do with social ability. And if you have someone else in the car to answer the phone, then that's fine. But that's not what you were implying by your previous post.
Others have these magical devices called hands-free-kits which let them legally (but not much more safely) answer the phone while driving.
You said it yourself - it has shown to be not much more safe than answering the phone without a hands-free kit. So why would you do it?
Again, what is the point of the phone muting the GPS navigator other than making talking on it while driving easier?
There is no other point. Which is why it shouldn't be done. It's a dangerous feature.
Seriously if you think no one in the world talks on a phone while driving or has a passenger answer their phone while driving you are epically stupid.
What the hell? Of course I know people do it. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't. People that do so are stupid. Why would an intelligent person do such a thing?
You haven't by any chance created any art yourself, have you? And if you have, was it really ex nihilio - or were you by any chance inspired by anyone else?
I certainly have. And yes, I take inspiration from other sources. But that's very different from outright reusing something. By the way, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I was just playing devil's advocate, because this "copyright stifles creativity" canard is repeated ad nauseam around here, without any thought going into it. I'd like to see any evidence that this is true. We live in an age of prevalent copyright, yet creativity is everywhere. From what I've observed, the most creative work tends to come from limitations and constraints, not from being handed something on a plate.
Anyway, SydShamino used the word 'should' which say nothing about law, but does say something about what feels right. It is thus a question of ethics.
I was just pointing out that how he feels has little to do with how things are.
And from an ethical standpoint, it is questionable to use the law to make retroactive changes to ownership
Again, this happens all the time. Deciding ownership is one of the primary uses of law. To change this would require a massive shift in the system, and go against centuries of legal precedent.
especially when the reasons you claim for making the changes contain logical fallacies.
Hang on a minute. I never argued for the extension of copyright. And where did I make a logical fallacy? Me pointing out what the current situation is, is not the same as me arguing for the current situation.
The (theoretical) idea of a long copyright period is to encourage creativity. But what's the point of extending the copyright of that which has already been created? Extending periods retroactively will only stifle creativity, since creative reuse is hindered
Wouldn't stifling reuse actually stimulate creativity? After all, it means people have to actually come up with new ideas, rather than simply recycling the old.
From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.
Right. So this is just your opinion, with nothing based on the actual laws.
Phones are specifically for answering calls while driving? I don't think so, and it's illegal in most places. You're looking at it the wrong way around. Cars are for driving, not answering calls. If you're driving a car, that's what you are supposed to be doing, not anything else. The law (and common sense) requires it.
Is a phone call really more important than your life?
No. There is this wonderful thing called "the internet" which you can connect to, and find all kinds of wonderful information. You might have heard of it, since you are using it to post to slashdot.
Naturally, the summary focuses sensationalistically on the popular buzzwords du jour: Twitter, Facebook, et-fucking-cetera. But the actual wording of the ban seems to be much more broad than this - it would supposedly ban somebody describing anything about a game on a regular cell-phone call. You couldn't call your wife and say "sorry, I'll be home late, the game is going into overtime."
Which to me, raises another question, why do we refer to the privileged sites (MySpace, Twitter, Facebook) as "social network" but exclude the mobile phone network? Doesn't it perform the same function? What about actual face-to-face social groups, are they not social networks?
Another nitpick: the article already says "Good luck with that," so shouldn't it be tagged "goodluckwiththatgoodluckwiththat" instead of simply "goodluckwiththat"?
Well, I don't know anything about Finnish. You describe it in a utilitarian sense. That's fine, a language does have to be useful for communication. But as an English speaker, a lot of the enjoyment of the language comes from the weird and wonderful words that only make sense through some sort of archaic historical reconstruction, or "quirks mode."
I'm not saying that other languages need to have these quirks to be interesting - I'm just saying that in the context of English it is meaningful. Some of the quirks inspire one to further research history, which would probably not be the case if they were simply phonetic.
I also question the value in being able to pronounce words that one does not understand. I believe that people should not be using words they don't understand in the first place.
Well, Chi/Qi is not exclusive to Tai Chi. Yoga, meditation, etc. also use it in different forms. As for it being a rip-off of the "real thing", that's almost meaningless in this field, where every devotee of a different style believes that their way is the "true way" and that their teacher is the best.
I agree that it's not a big deal, but it's true that on several year old WinMo phones you can receive or make a call without leaving your navigation program. That can be occasionally useful.
For those times when you really want to crash your car?
Anybody who knows anything about technology journalism. He's a well-known troll. Hell, even the screed you link to contains the ridiculous "OMG, a website cost $18 million!!!!" bullshit argument. The only way anybody could take Dvorak seriously is if they are gullible and don't understand the subject. I mean, he's personally admitted to being a troll.
I'm amazed that you aren't even aware of his widespread reputation... but I guess that explains his readership.
If the music should be in the public domain, as the early works of the Beatles should be by now,
OK, so why should they be in the public domain by now? Doesn't the law state otherwise? And even if the works were in the public domain, how does that get you access to the master tapes?
But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
Sure, but you aren't automatically entitled to multi-track master recordings in an uncompressed format. Why shouldn't the owners restrict access to the master recordings if they see fit? Should a photographer give you the original RAW files of your wedding photos, when you only paid for an album of prints?
All in all, I just found the movie to be simply unbelievable (yes, I KNOW it is only sci-fi, but still, c'mon!) that were this situation to occur, I just can't see people acting like that. I'd expect tighter government controls, with more international pressures.
But this situation is happening today, in refugee camps around the world. And it plays out pretty much how it does in the movie. Apart from some heroic efforts by charities and the token attention of international organizations like the UN, nobody really gives a shit, and nations around the world keep making excuses as to why we shouldn't help refugees or allow them into our nations.
Well, if she didn't show up and present any evidence, the court had to decide against her. That doesn't prove that her story wasn't stolen.
I don't know if it was or not, but what's really annoying is the way people around here treat snopes like some sort of word-of-god, completely infallible in its accuracy. When it clearly isn't.
Perhaps that this was made anticipating most of the audience to be DVD viewers? Or perhaps it was because the editors and cinematographers do their work on small screens? The massive size of a cinema screen amplifies the jerkiness. I imagine it would look a lot more normal on a home TV screen or a computer monitor used by an editor.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that PS2s are still selling (strangely) well and getting new game releases, it's unlikely Sony will restore BC (even if only software emulation) to the PS3 platform.
That still doesn't make business sense. Wouldn't they want people to migrate to the PS3? A PS3 sale is worth a lot more to Sony than a PS2 sale - what with the extra profits from the Playstation Store, higher-priced games, and royalties from Blu-Ray movie sales. Besides, if that was the logic, why did the original PS3 have PS2 compatibility at launch?
Some people aren't completely socially inept and have other people in the car with them who can answer the damn phone pretty safely.
It has nothing to do with social ability. And if you have someone else in the car to answer the phone, then that's fine. But that's not what you were implying by your previous post.
Others have these magical devices called hands-free-kits which let them legally (but not much more safely) answer the phone while driving.
You said it yourself - it has shown to be not much more safe than answering the phone without a hands-free kit. So why would you do it?
Again, what is the point of the phone muting the GPS navigator other than making talking on it while driving easier?
There is no other point. Which is why it shouldn't be done. It's a dangerous feature.
Seriously if you think no one in the world talks on a phone while driving or has a passenger answer their phone while driving you are epically stupid.
What the hell? Of course I know people do it. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't. People that do so are stupid. Why would an intelligent person do such a thing?
You haven't by any chance created any art yourself, have you? And if you have, was it really ex nihilio - or were you by any chance inspired by anyone else?
I certainly have. And yes, I take inspiration from other sources. But that's very different from outright reusing something. By the way, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I was just playing devil's advocate, because this "copyright stifles creativity" canard is repeated ad nauseam around here, without any thought going into it. I'd like to see any evidence that this is true. We live in an age of prevalent copyright, yet creativity is everywhere. From what I've observed, the most creative work tends to come from limitations and constraints, not from being handed something on a plate.
Anyway, SydShamino used the word 'should' which say nothing about law, but does say something about what feels right. It is thus a question of ethics.
I was just pointing out that how he feels has little to do with how things are.
And from an ethical standpoint, it is questionable to use the law to make retroactive changes to ownership
Again, this happens all the time. Deciding ownership is one of the primary uses of law. To change this would require a massive shift in the system, and go against centuries of legal precedent.
especially when the reasons you claim for making the changes contain logical fallacies.
Hang on a minute. I never argued for the extension of copyright. And where did I make a logical fallacy? Me pointing out what the current situation is, is not the same as me arguing for the current situation.
What about them?
The (theoretical) idea of a long copyright period is to encourage creativity. But what's the point of extending the copyright of that which has already been created? Extending periods retroactively will only stifle creativity, since creative reuse is hindered
Wouldn't stifling reuse actually stimulate creativity? After all, it means people have to actually come up with new ideas, rather than simply recycling the old.
From that point of view, both Disney movies and early Beatles songs should be in the public domain by now.
Right. So this is just your opinion, with nothing based on the actual laws.
You Brits have a minister devoted to digital entertainment? Is finger-fucking covered by his portfolio?
Phones are specifically for answering calls while driving? I don't think so, and it's illegal in most places. You're looking at it the wrong way around. Cars are for driving, not answering calls. If you're driving a car, that's what you are supposed to be doing, not anything else. The law (and common sense) requires it.
Is a phone call really more important than your life?
No. There is this wonderful thing called "the internet" which you can connect to, and find all kinds of wonderful information. You might have heard of it, since you are using it to post to slashdot.
... better laid...
Ewwwww... Now I really don't want to know the details of your "testing methodology" if that's a requirement.
When the first SEC game is held, and 10,000 people all tweet (or post to Facebook, etc,) from their cell phone "Take that, SEC!", what will they do?
Nothing, because that doesn't violate the rules. If they described the game, that would be a different matter.
They would have to delete the memory inside the brain every time someone steps outside.
Yes, they would. That's what scientists are for, to develop solutions to problems like this.
Naturally, the summary focuses sensationalistically on the popular buzzwords du jour: Twitter, Facebook, et-fucking-cetera. But the actual wording of the ban seems to be much more broad than this - it would supposedly ban somebody describing anything about a game on a regular cell-phone call. You couldn't call your wife and say "sorry, I'll be home late, the game is going into overtime."
Which to me, raises another question, why do we refer to the privileged sites (MySpace, Twitter, Facebook) as "social network" but exclude the mobile phone network? Doesn't it perform the same function? What about actual face-to-face social groups, are they not social networks?
Another nitpick: the article already says "Good luck with that," so shouldn't it be tagged "goodluckwiththatgoodluckwiththat" instead of simply "goodluckwiththat"?
Well, I don't know anything about Finnish. You describe it in a utilitarian sense. That's fine, a language does have to be useful for communication. But as an English speaker, a lot of the enjoyment of the language comes from the weird and wonderful words that only make sense through some sort of archaic historical reconstruction, or "quirks mode."
I'm not saying that other languages need to have these quirks to be interesting - I'm just saying that in the context of English it is meaningful. Some of the quirks inspire one to further research history, which would probably not be the case if they were simply phonetic.
I also question the value in being able to pronounce words that one does not understand. I believe that people should not be using words they don't understand in the first place.
Well, Chi/Qi is not exclusive to Tai Chi. Yoga, meditation, etc. also use it in different forms. As for it being a rip-off of the "real thing", that's almost meaningless in this field, where every devotee of a different style believes that their way is the "true way" and that their teacher is the best.
But why would you answer your phone while driving? It doesn't make sense.
I agree that it's not a big deal, but it's true that on several year old WinMo phones you can receive or make a call without leaving your navigation program. That can be occasionally useful.
For those times when you really want to crash your car?
Anybody who knows anything about technology journalism. He's a well-known troll. Hell, even the screed you link to contains the ridiculous "OMG, a website cost $18 million!!!!" bullshit argument. The only way anybody could take Dvorak seriously is if they are gullible and don't understand the subject. I mean, he's personally admitted to being a troll.
I'm amazed that you aren't even aware of his widespread reputation... but I guess that explains his readership.
In 20 years people will go "meh" over the antics of Marilyn Manson and whatever other "shock rockers" we may have today.
In 20 years? Nobody has ever responded to Marilyn Manson with anything but "meh." Is there anyone on the planet who Manson has actually shocked?
Probably not. Not a good idea to let the youth of the nations know that their heroes ate LSD like candy back in the days.
Why not?
If the music should be in the public domain, as the early works of the Beatles should be by now,
OK, so why should they be in the public domain by now? Doesn't the law state otherwise? And even if the works were in the public domain, how does that get you access to the master tapes?
Return copyright to 20 or 40 years, and I believe people would be a lot more respectful of it.
That's extremely naive of you.
But creatively extending someone else's work is art.
Sure, but you aren't automatically entitled to multi-track master recordings in an uncompressed format. Why shouldn't the owners restrict access to the master recordings if they see fit? Should a photographer give you the original RAW files of your wedding photos, when you only paid for an album of prints?
All in all, I just found the movie to be simply unbelievable (yes, I KNOW it is only sci-fi, but still, c'mon!) that were this situation to occur, I just can't see people acting like that. I'd expect tighter government controls, with more international pressures.
But this situation is happening today, in refugee camps around the world. And it plays out pretty much how it does in the movie. Apart from some heroic efforts by charities and the token attention of international organizations like the UN, nobody really gives a shit, and nations around the world keep making excuses as to why we shouldn't help refugees or allow them into our nations.
Well, if she didn't show up and present any evidence, the court had to decide against her. That doesn't prove that her story wasn't stolen.
I don't know if it was or not, but what's really annoying is the way people around here treat snopes like some sort of word-of-god, completely infallible in its accuracy. When it clearly isn't.
Perhaps that this was made anticipating most of the audience to be DVD viewers? Or perhaps it was because the editors and cinematographers do their work on small screens? The massive size of a cinema screen amplifies the jerkiness. I imagine it would look a lot more normal on a home TV screen or a computer monitor used by an editor.