Maybe it is just me, but after nearly 30 years of using computers, there is something about sitting down in front of the latest Mac computers and operating systems that makes me want to use them.
No no, it's not you. It's that one-button mouse. Compelling triumph of design efficiency if I ever saw one.
TFA: Existing online role-playing games are succeeding with women in spite of their subject matter, not because of it.
'Kinda unqualified mishmash is that? Which of knights, dragons, magic and fairies is diametrically opposed to the female sex? There's no need for sexist archetypes--plenty of broads got as excited over LOTR as I did. The vast majority of men still prefer sports to hobbits. Geeks are geeks.
TFA quotes the founder of a certain Int. Game Dev. Assoc. as saying women don't have time to commit to games. And their social nature makes MMO'ing natural.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the suggested "solution" anything but a glorified chatroom? Is this "MMO experience" worth dumping money into; do we think women will pay subscription fees for their 15-minute chunks of trivial diversion?
What is this fusion of casual gaming and MMO we're going to tap?
A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy
I might remind you the United States is not a democracy, which is the whole reason for executive judicial appointments and lifetime terms.
The court doesn't "make law" and never has. It rules. To decide an act of legislature violates the principles of the republic is not a "law against lawmaking;" that's patently silly.
and seriously, what's with this "Enhanced Graphics Architecture?" Do we really need all those colors for video games? It's not like anybody will ever put photographs on their computer.
mathematics (which, by the way, is not patentable).
The difference between applied mathematics and software is functionally semantic. You can't patent an alogrithm, but you can patent an algorithm.
The difference is that the mathematical community is self-policing. Everybody knows the status of prior art, and while infringement allegations aren't uncommon, they're settled with good old-fashioned hostility, oneupsmanship, and secrecy bordering on paranoia. A friend once remarked that the competition was so fierce because the stakes are so little.
Off-topic, I hear in the new movie, Willy Wonka takes Slugworth to court, alleging encroachment of certain delicious chocolates and wonderful toys.
So, Amazon is basically saving their customer's viewing/browsing tendencies as data. Now, they've patented the usage of this data to generate more sales.
They're trying to make their business as unique as possible, and if it takes a few of these patents for them to keep their edge over their competitors, why not?
The patent system does not exist to be exploited. Come up with another name for it and I'll buy you a soda.
As you said--"currently in use, easily implement:" not patentable.
Are we currently experiencing a dark age because we don't have access to every letter, memo, bank statement and laundry ticket created in the 20th century?
It is a matter beyond impeachment that future generations can expect substantial volumes of washie to go unclaimed, forgotten to the sonorous march of history.
As a proof of concept, do we care?
It's like visiting Newark when nobody's ever crossed the Atlantic. Sure it's not NYC, but if the harbor's that much harder to navigate, maybe we should concentrate on the big puddle, and worry about the little one with jagged rocks later.
Don't get me wrong, I bet Ferdinand and Isabella were pissed back in the day, but do we still expect a maiden voyage to come home laden with gold and spices?
and you should be able to hack anything you own as long as it doesn't endanger anyone, deprive them of privacy, deprive them of something else, etc. -- it's yours.
Protecting the commons (air, water) with regulations on private ownership is one thing. Protecting an industry's business model is quite another, and there's no reason for the law to be involved here. No reason at all.
If you didn't literally sign an EULA, no amount of legislation can create a vicarious contract inked merely by your opening a box. Protectionism might boost the economy, at the price of absurdity.
If the manufacturer didn't intend me to use my purchase a certain way, fuck him. We call that "invention," and we call the purchase "property." It's a pretty groovy invention, property; our entire way of life is erected on it. No shady legal bullshit can make a sale a loan.
I've got a suggestion--let's cut the crap and call "intellectual property" "intangible goods," or how about "immaterial objects." No--"idea things." Make it hip: "yin-yang." "Orrin Hatch lobbies Congress to protect Hollywood's yin-yang."
You can't own a thought--you can have a thought, you can change a thought, you can share a thought, you can lose a whole train of thought. Somebody might have the same thought. You can perish the thought, if it's bothering you, or do thought experiments. Thoughts are delicate creatures, which is why we have food for thought and schools of thought. But owning them is out of the question.
I have the flu--my wife gave it to me. Do I own the flu? She's my wife, do I own her too? Hey pal--that's none of your business. Whose is it, and do they get a tax write-off? This drives me out of my mind, which will go on public auction if nobody claims it in 30 days.
It doesn't make sense to promote a public domain work because anyone could come along and release the same item, leeching off your marketing and undercutting you on price.
And GOD KNOWS we cannot abide LESS MARKETING.
If Charles Dickens were Walt Disney, we'd only have Christmas every five years. Half of marketing is in the package--go to any store in the mall aimed at women and tremble at the subtle majestynot of the merchandise, but its container.
Big media hasn't offered digital content yet because they don't know how to sell shit without a shiny box to put it in. People buy classic fiction because it has intrinsic value, which is apparently too risky a footing on which to stake a capitalist venture anymore.
All patent and copyright infringement suits shall henceforth be decided by Judges Wapner, Judy, and/or Joe Brown. No degree of sound judgment or consistency is thereby present, express or implied.
If scumbucket lawyers mine the legal system for exploits, the "admins" should moderate accordingly. Why are only local judges ruling on traffic infractions by poor people morally entitled to be total pricks?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it is just me, but after nearly 30 years of using computers, there is something about sitting down in front of the latest Mac computers and operating systems that makes me want to use them.
No no, it's not you. It's that one-button mouse. Compelling triumph of design efficiency if I ever saw one.
TFA: Existing online role-playing games are succeeding with women in spite of their subject matter, not because of it.
'Kinda unqualified mishmash is that? Which of knights, dragons, magic and fairies is diametrically opposed to the female sex? There's no need for sexist archetypes--plenty of broads got as excited over LOTR as I did. The vast majority of men still prefer sports to hobbits. Geeks are geeks.
TFA quotes the founder of a certain Int. Game Dev. Assoc. as saying women don't have time to commit to games. And their social nature makes MMO'ing natural.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the suggested "solution" anything but a glorified chatroom? Is this "MMO experience" worth dumping money into; do we think women will pay subscription fees for their 15-minute chunks of trivial diversion?
What is this fusion of casual gaming and MMO we're going to tap?
Famously, during the premiere performance of the 3rd, someone in the audience shouted that he'd "give a kreutzer" for it to be done and over with.
And ironically, the composer wasn't deaf yet.
At 4 kB/s, if you download it ten times, you're more patient than I am.
With decent tenure, the standard severance package is pretty sweet.
A state where judges are allowed to make up law is an autocracy, not a democracy
I might remind you the United States is not a democracy, which is the whole reason for executive judicial appointments and lifetime terms.
The court doesn't "make law" and never has. It rules. To decide an act of legislature violates the principles of the republic is not a "law against lawmaking;" that's patently silly.
and seriously, what's with this "Enhanced Graphics Architecture?" Do we really need all those colors for video games? It's not like anybody will ever put photographs on their computer.
It seems like a good idea to me...Of course it's not reasonable
We have different definitions of "good idea."
mathematics (which, by the way, is not patentable).
The difference between applied mathematics and software is functionally semantic. You can't patent an alogrithm, but you can patent an algorithm.
The difference is that the mathematical community is self-policing. Everybody knows the status of prior art, and while infringement allegations aren't uncommon, they're settled with good old-fashioned hostility, oneupsmanship, and secrecy bordering on paranoia. A friend once remarked that the competition was so fierce because the stakes are so little.
Off-topic, I hear in the new movie, Willy Wonka takes Slugworth to court, alleging encroachment of certain delicious chocolates and wonderful toys.
So, Amazon is basically saving their customer's viewing/browsing tendencies as data. Now, they've patented the usage of this data to generate more sales.
And this is reasonable?
They're trying to make their business as unique as possible, and if it takes a few of these patents for them to keep their edge over their competitors, why not?
The patent system does not exist to be exploited. Come up with another name for it and I'll buy you a soda.
As you said--"currently in use, easily implement:" not patentable.
Spinal Tap could not be reached for comment.
We're doin' it for a SHITLOADA money!!!
--Lone Star
...is my ticket purchase tax-deductible?
Gross is gross. That's "disgusting."
"Give them to me."
"What do you want??"
"That Gem...and the Holograms."
Are we currently experiencing a dark age because we don't have access to every letter, memo, bank statement and laundry ticket created in the 20th century?
It is a matter beyond impeachment that future generations can expect substantial volumes of washie to go unclaimed, forgotten to the sonorous march of history.
Think of the crap as padding. When you only save important information, and then you lose information, it was important.
346 petabytes of padding might be overdoing it though.
I just verbed two nouns
Make that three.
As a proof of concept, do we care? It's like visiting Newark when nobody's ever crossed the Atlantic. Sure it's not NYC, but if the harbor's that much harder to navigate, maybe we should concentrate on the big puddle, and worry about the little one with jagged rocks later.
Don't get me wrong, I bet Ferdinand and Isabella were pissed back in the day, but do we still expect a maiden voyage to come home laden with gold and spices?
and you should be able to hack anything you own as long as it doesn't endanger anyone, deprive them of privacy, deprive them of something else, etc. -- it's yours.
Protecting the commons (air, water) with regulations on private ownership is one thing. Protecting an industry's business model is quite another, and there's no reason for the law to be involved here. No reason at all.
If you didn't literally sign an EULA, no amount of legislation can create a vicarious contract inked merely by your opening a box. Protectionism might boost the economy, at the price of absurdity.
If the manufacturer didn't intend me to use my purchase a certain way, fuck him. We call that "invention," and we call the purchase "property." It's a pretty groovy invention, property; our entire way of life is erected on it. No shady legal bullshit can make a sale a loan.
I've got a suggestion--let's cut the crap and call "intellectual property" "intangible goods," or how about "immaterial objects." No--"idea things." Make it hip: "yin-yang." "Orrin Hatch lobbies Congress to protect Hollywood's yin-yang."
You can't own a thought--you can have a thought, you can change a thought, you can share a thought, you can lose a whole train of thought. Somebody might have the same thought. You can perish the thought, if it's bothering you, or do thought experiments. Thoughts are delicate creatures, which is why we have food for thought and schools of thought. But owning them is out of the question.
I have the flu--my wife gave it to me. Do I own the flu? She's my wife, do I own her too? Hey pal--that's none of your business. Whose is it, and do they get a tax write-off? This drives me out of my mind, which will go on public auction if nobody claims it in 30 days.
I never followed the debate closely enough to've heard of Jack Valenti before. I'm now in chapter 3 and it's abundantly clear he's a jerkoff.
Cheers and thanks.
It doesn't make sense to promote a public domain work because anyone could come along and release the same item, leeching off your marketing and undercutting you on price.
And GOD KNOWS we cannot abide LESS MARKETING.
If Charles Dickens were Walt Disney, we'd only have Christmas every five years. Half of marketing is in the package--go to any store in the mall aimed at women and tremble at the subtle majestynot of the merchandise, but its container.
Big media hasn't offered digital content yet because they don't know how to sell shit without a shiny box to put it in. People buy classic fiction because it has intrinsic value, which is apparently too risky a footing on which to stake a capitalist venture anymore.
Over-educated? They're fucking rocket scientists.
Point taken. But "did the fucker explode" is a pretty low-level binary-valued interrogative.
All patent and copyright infringement suits shall henceforth be decided by Judges Wapner, Judy, and/or Joe Brown. No degree of sound judgment or consistency is thereby present, express or implied.
If scumbucket lawyers mine the legal system for exploits, the "admins" should moderate accordingly. Why are only local judges ruling on traffic infractions by poor people morally entitled to be total pricks?