Yeah, I fully agree that that the PRC will, during what's seen as their gigantic, international debut as a modern nation, arrest and detain foreign reporters for sharing DSL. This is a most logical thing to do, and would definitely not result in any kind of enormous scandal.
Seriously, did you think about any of the shit you wrote here? After a few DSL thieves are jailed, what happens when the rest of the media send urgent reports all around the world saying "oh shit looks like China is still a horrible authoritarian hellhole"? The Chinese government would either have to: a) admit this, or b) jail more reporters. Both of these would completely fuck up their goal of using the Olympics to say "hey we're not so bad".
no "Ex post facto" laws means (and is intended to mean) that you can't make something illegal after-the-fact. Not that you can't absolve people of wrongdoing, or make something that was illegal legal.
Excuse my ignorance, but how does this make any sense at all? I mean, apparently it's possible to grant amnesty to people/companies in this way, but it really just doesn't make logical sense; instead, it appears ripe for abuse.
There are also games that got European releases but not US ones. For example we didn't get any of the Ufouria games (Hebereke in Japan). Although I think Europe probably does get screwed over the most (as a region).
It's why code by older programmers often is longer and more extensive than the simpler, cleaner, but more trusting software written by less experienced developers. The new developers with exciting new approaches often haven't learned the lessons of our experience, and by the time they've done all the patching to avoid the same pitfalls, their code will be as arcane as ours.
Aw, I was hoping that as I got older my skill would increase and my code would get more compact. But right now I am picturing a cranky old hacker yelling at the younger coders to "get off my macros!"
You've posted references to or versions of this little diatribe three times in this thread. This is rather tiring, because the only reference I see you making to any actual Bugzilla entries is in a post from over two years ago. Of the two bugs you reference in that post, one is marked "fixed" and the other "invalid".
Now normally I would request that you either give us links to actual bugs that are outstanding. But I'm not going to do that, because I know you can't be objective when discussing this issue.
How do I know this? Because the bug marked "invalid" appears to be submitted by you. Thus I suspect that your vitriol for the Firefox/Mozilla people is a personal response to feeling scorned or something, and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who argues because they had their feelings hurt and therefore holds an irrational grudge about something.
Actually look at the link - you can see that red has a clear advantage, red wins about 80% of the Gold Rush maps, and about 58% of the Dustbowl maps.
Again I'll state - I'd like to see what the percentages would be if Valve only included the servers which used the default spawn times, I'd expect red to much less of an advantage (or maybe even no advantage at all).
Yeah, I'm not trying to claim that the Valve data doesn't show red winning more. All I'm saying is that there is no inherent advantage for red on attack/defend style maps.
To keep things fair the attackers respawn a lot quicker than the defenders (since the attacker has to respawn and run halfway across the map, while the defender usually respawns only a short walk from the final defence point).
I find it hard to believe you actually play TF2, because if you did you'd mention that the engineer class can build teleporters which equalize travel time for the blue team. Thus, quick respawn + teleport = back in the action much faster than red.
Also, the OP's statistics were referencing the Goldrush map, which still has some major balance issues that favor red. Since you fail to mention this as well I really have a hard time believing you're playing the same game I am.
That software was written in good faith, so you should act in good faith. This means that it was written in the assumption that you would have the good sense not to copy it, even if you were able.
This assumption is extremely flawed. The most fundamental error is that you make an assumption that something like the current type of copyright law exists, and that this type of law should exist.
This is a problem because the advent of ubiquitous personal computers has, as this article and discussion shows, raised serious questions about whether copyright law as it currently exists[1].
Since you fail to even acknowledge this, which is in fact the root of the discussion, you base your argument on ground that has not been proven. And without that solid foundation, your argument has nothing to stand on.
-Note- [1]Including (but not limited to): -The feasability and ethics of enforcing the current laws. -If the laws should be changed, the magnitude and direction they should move in order to account for the fact that we can make free copies of many types of copyrightable works. -Or, if tweaking the existing laws doesn't work/seem like a good idea, if the laws should be scrapped or replaced with something much different.
I've kind of lost the desire to continue this thread, unless you can point out what parts of your post here is the reply to my main point, being:
I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical.
I can't figure out which of the half-dozen things you rant about is aimed at actually addressing my thesis.
----
Also, since it appears I was unclear on some of the more tangential bits of my post I'll try and explain myself:
The reason I wrote "don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic [...]" was because you did, in fact, use such reasoning. People with social phobia/anxiety refrain from doing things because they think that others will judge them as stupid, crazy, insane, etc. Compare this with your original post (emphasis mine):
Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.
I didn't say this out of spite, I said it because this passage is exactly the line of thinking people with this disorder go down.
Of course, this might also lead to even greater levels of worthless game footage uploaded to youtube. At least there was a slight technical knowledge required to capture the video, then encode and upload. Now literally anyone can do it.
I don't think this elitism is really warranted. The fact that somebody has the equipment and knowledge to capture console gameplay videos doesn't mean their videos will be any good. Conversely, someone who can make killer demo videos doesn't really need to know jack about setting up capture equipment or video compression techniques.
Disclaimer: I don't own any current-gen console (well, I do have a DS), and I think MS, Sony and Nintendo are all equally evil.
The Wii can't even play DVDs (well, technically it can, but there is no software to do so..:/ ), so it shouldn't even come into this.
I didn't mention the Wii, but I thought Nintendo was relevant because it's important to think about MS and Sony's PR battle about arcane technical things should be thought of in the context of the larger issue of making money. Specifically, even if Sony can claim that PS3 gets you Bluray for $100 less (or whatever) than a 360, this doesn't matter if they both fall way behind Nintendo.
Linux is an operating system, and a very good one at that, but please treat everyone else like adults who are capable of making their own minds up as to what OS they want to run. Fine, if they choose not to consider Linux then so be it, let it be their loss but let them get on with it.
Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.
I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical. I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary. However, please don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic to try dissuade those who want to stand up for what's right.
And before the retarded replies of "WHY R U FORCING UR LUNIX ON ME COMMIE", note that my opinion here has nothing to do with the particular companies or philosophies in this discussion. I support this criticism of Microsoft because I think lying is bad, and it's pretty clear that "Get the Facts" is not very honest.
To successfully argue a point, one needs three things: a claim, data to support that claim, and reasoning that shows why the data is relevant to the claim. In your post here you make a claim, but you don't provide any data or reasoning in support of it. Because of this, your claim is completely unconvincing.
If you wish to clarify your position, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about it.
Now I'm not sure what Prof. Hansen means here, as it's not well-stated. "You reject the idea that the intellectual elite... should not run this country?" Syntactically, I think he used a double negative when that's not really what he wanted to do.
As for his point, I think it was basically to make a (fallacious) argument from authority. Something like "how dare you question our conclusion, we are the powerful!". It's really quite an arrogant thing to say, especially when he later falsely accuses Mr. NYCL of putting forth a fallacy.
it will also presumably be a lot cheaper than buying either a PS3
I don't believe this. The PS3's current price reflects the fact that Sony is not only the gatekeeper for that platform but also that they manufacture a bunch of its components themselves. MS has a disadvantage here because they can't do neat tricks like deciding "we're not going to make any profit on parts X, Y, and Z until it costs less to produce them".
The funny thing is that it seems like MS has been trying really hard as of late to make their console business profitable. If they really are going forward with a Bluray 360, they're in a really tough spot: it will be a PR coup for Sony if costs more than a PS3.
Of course, this type of PR win will only sway the Sony/MS battle for all the nerds who argue about video games on the Internet. They will both still be trailing Nintendo.
[It's] just a souped up version of the previous GTA games.
I may never play this game (I have no plans to buy a 360 or PSTripple). However, IV looks like a GTA I'd actually enjoy. I played 3 and Vice City a little, and own San Andreas. And while I think they're OK, that game engine was so shitty it really sapped my desire to keep playing.
Sure, SA had miles and miles of city and country to drive through and tons of things to do. However I really can't play a game for dozens of hours that has shitty collision detection and mediocre controls.
It looks like IV fixes that stuff. I'd probably love it.
The OP claimed that Nintendo still holds the copyright to all the games they released for Super Nintendo. I pointed out that this may not be the case; the only way to be sure would be to dig up the copyright records. The OP responds that "Nintendo hasn't done that". I point out, again, that they really would need to dig up the records to actually prove this.
Yet for some reason you think that it is me who should be looking up these records. This reasoning makes no sense. The OP, not me, is the one making unsusbstantiated claims (copyright status) about a third party (Nintendo). This means that the burden of proof is on the OP, not me.
You again fail to cite any actual proof of what you're claiming. Where are the copyright records that prove Nintendo still holds all these copyrights? A copyright notice on a work does not prove that a person/company still holds that copyright today, nor does it prove that they ever did.
However, play it with a five year old, my god, you'll go insane. It's like playing Contra all over again.
I used to be that kid! I'd try and play two-player with my cousin or some older friend. After a while I'd just give up and watch them play, oohing and aahing at how awesome they were.
I specifically remember playing Contra once, where every time we'd get to a tricky jump, he'd have to kill off all the enemies, take my controller, hop through the jumps, and then we'd continue. I think I died off when we reached the waterfall level, because when one player got too far ahead, the screen would scroll up past the lagging player, killing me instantly.
What makes you say that? Nintendo has not abandoned copyright in Super NES games. They are still being republished on Virtual Console. Your post, as well as the OP, should be modded "-1, Urban Legend", as they both have points based in fact, yet are incorrect when taken as a whole. I'll try and untangle the mess.
Some of the confusion here stems from the use of the term "abandonware". The OP is not correct in saying that (all) SNES roms are abandonware. However, the case of CherryRoms shows that most SNES roms are fine to download. To stay legal, just find a ROM site that complies with takedown notices.
Moving on, it's unfortunate that you added to the confusion over terms by inventing the action of "abandoning copyright". I'm pretty sure this is not an actual legal term, as I've never heard of a person or company filing their "copyright abandonment" papers with the copyright office. The correct thing to say here would be "Nintendo still holds the copyright to their Super NES games".
Further, your statement about Nintendo holding the copyrights to their SNES games is completely unsubstantiated. The obvious retort to this is "obviously they do because of the Berne Convention". However this reply fails to account for how business is actually done: video game companies often farm out development or other aspects of game making to third parties. Have you researched whether all these copyrights were transferred (and transferred correctly) to Nintendo? Also, I've read of companies sometimes putting their copyrights into the public domain as tax writeoffs. Have you researched whether Nintendo's done this? If you haven't, you really shouldn't make such broad claims about the copyrights they hold, as you have no way of knowing if that claim is correct.
I'd also like to clarify some other ambiguous aspects of your post before they create further confusion:
1. Nintendo has not abandoned copyright in Super NES games.
This statement could be interpreted to mean that Nintendo holds the copyright for all SNES games. This is not the case.
2. They are still being republished on Virtual Console.
This is rather nitpicky, but it's important to note that something can still be "published", even if it's fallen into the public domain (e.g. go to a bookstore's "classics" section). If this were the case, it would not be correct to claim that a Nintendo holds that copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I fully agree that that the PRC will, during what's seen as their gigantic, international debut as a modern nation, arrest and detain foreign reporters for sharing DSL. This is a most logical thing to do, and would definitely not result in any kind of enormous scandal.
Seriously, did you think about any of the shit you wrote here? After a few DSL thieves are jailed, what happens when the rest of the media send urgent reports all around the world saying "oh shit looks like China is still a horrible authoritarian hellhole"? The Chinese government would either have to: a) admit this, or b) jail more reporters. Both of these would completely fuck up their goal of using the Olympics to say "hey we're not so bad".
How about a "Liberacy"? (a) Maybe, but it evokes the wrong sort of popular pianist to appeal to everyone.
So...the word "Liberacy" evokes thoughts of Ben Folds or something?
The only downside to this is that it would reinforce the notion that anyone should listen to the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute.
no "Ex post facto" laws means (and is intended to mean) that you can't make something illegal after-the-fact. Not that you can't absolve people of wrongdoing, or make something that was illegal legal.
Excuse my ignorance, but how does this make any sense at all? I mean, apparently it's possible to grant amnesty to people/companies in this way, but it really just doesn't make logical sense; instead, it appears ripe for abuse.
There are also games that got European releases but not US ones. For example we didn't get any of the Ufouria games (Hebereke in Japan). Although I think Europe probably does get screwed over the most (as a region).
It's why code by older programmers often is longer and more extensive than the simpler, cleaner, but more trusting software written by less experienced developers. The new developers with exciting new approaches often haven't learned the lessons of our experience, and by the time they've done all the patching to avoid the same pitfalls, their code will be as arcane as ours.
Aw, I was hoping that as I got older my skill would increase and my code would get more compact. But right now I am picturing a cranky old hacker yelling at the younger coders to "get off my macros!"
You've posted references to or versions of this little diatribe three times in this thread. This is rather tiring, because the only reference I see you making to any actual Bugzilla entries is in a post from over two years ago. Of the two bugs you reference in that post, one is marked "fixed" and the other "invalid".
Now normally I would request that you either give us links to actual bugs that are outstanding. But I'm not going to do that, because I know you can't be objective when discussing this issue.
How do I know this? Because the bug marked "invalid" appears to be submitted by you. Thus I suspect that your vitriol for the Firefox/Mozilla people is a personal response to feeling scorned or something, and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who argues because they had their feelings hurt and therefore holds an irrational grudge about something.
Actually look at the link - you can see that red has a clear advantage, red wins about 80% of the Gold Rush maps, and about 58% of the Dustbowl maps.
Again I'll state - I'd like to see what the percentages would be if Valve only included the servers which used the default spawn times, I'd expect red to much less of an advantage (or maybe even no advantage at all).
Yeah, I'm not trying to claim that the Valve data doesn't show red winning more. All I'm saying is that there is no inherent advantage for red on attack/defend style maps.
Gold Rush and Dustbowl are the 2 maps where blue attacks and red defends, clearly red has a major advantage.
I'm unsure of what your argument is; this sentence by itself is a non sequitur.
To keep things fair the attackers respawn a lot quicker than the defenders (since the attacker has to respawn and run halfway across the map, while the defender usually respawns only a short walk from the final defence point).
I find it hard to believe you actually play TF2, because if you did you'd mention that the engineer class can build teleporters which equalize travel time for the blue team. Thus, quick respawn + teleport = back in the action much faster than red.
Also, the OP's statistics were referencing the Goldrush map, which still has some major balance issues that favor red. Since you fail to mention this as well I really have a hard time believing you're playing the same game I am.
That software was written in good faith, so you should act in good faith. This means that it was written in the assumption that you would have the good sense not to copy it, even if you were able.
This assumption is extremely flawed. The most fundamental error is that you make an assumption that something like the current type of copyright law exists, and that this type of law should exist.
This is a problem because the advent of ubiquitous personal computers has, as this article and discussion shows, raised serious questions about whether copyright law as it currently exists[1].
Since you fail to even acknowledge this, which is in fact the root of the discussion, you base your argument on ground that has not been proven. And without that solid foundation, your argument has nothing to stand on.
-Note-
[1]Including (but not limited to):
-The feasability and ethics of enforcing the current laws.
-If the laws should be changed, the magnitude and direction they should move in order to account for the fact that we can make free copies of many types of copyrightable works.
-Or, if tweaking the existing laws doesn't work/seem like a good idea, if the laws should be scrapped or replaced with something much different.
I fail to see how looking at the broader issue of the home console landscape (PS3, 360, Wii) is "apples and oranges" to a comparison exluding the Wii.
P.S. please note that my reference to the DS was in a "disclaimer" section and has very little to do with my main point.
I've kind of lost the desire to continue this thread, unless you can point out what parts of your post here is the reply to my main point, being:
I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical.
I can't figure out which of the half-dozen things you rant about is aimed at actually addressing my thesis.
----
Also, since it appears I was unclear on some of the more tangential bits of my post I'll try and explain myself:
The reason I wrote "don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic [...]" was because you did, in fact, use such reasoning. People with social phobia/anxiety refrain from doing things because they think that others will judge them as stupid, crazy, insane, etc. Compare this with your original post (emphasis mine):
Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.
I didn't say this out of spite, I said it because this passage is exactly the line of thinking people with this disorder go down.
Of course, this might also lead to even greater levels of worthless game footage uploaded to youtube. At least there was a slight technical knowledge required to capture the video, then encode and upload. Now literally anyone can do it.
I don't think this elitism is really warranted. The fact that somebody has the equipment and knowledge to capture console gameplay videos doesn't mean their videos will be any good. Conversely, someone who can make killer demo videos doesn't really need to know jack about setting up capture equipment or video compression techniques.
Disclaimer: I don't own any current-gen console (well, I do have a DS), and I think MS, Sony and Nintendo are all equally evil.
:/ ), so it shouldn't even come into this.
The Wii can't even play DVDs (well, technically it can, but there is no software to do so..
I didn't mention the Wii, but I thought Nintendo was relevant because it's important to think about MS and Sony's PR battle about arcane technical things should be thought of in the context of the larger issue of making money. Specifically, even if Sony can claim that PS3 gets you Bluray for $100 less (or whatever) than a 360, this doesn't matter if they both fall way behind Nintendo.
Linux is an operating system, and a very good one at that, but please treat everyone else like adults who are capable of making their own minds up as to what OS they want to run. Fine, if they choose not to consider Linux then so be it, let it be their loss but let them get on with it.
Unless you are fighting for open file standards (so Linux can interoperate on par with Windows) or pushing back on DRM, you will do more harm than good to Linux and the Open Source movement because you will appear as nothing more than a religious zealot.
I think it's pretty unethical to say no one should call out the powerful on their lies because somebody might feel offended, or because someone might see you as a radical. I can understand if you lack the courage to speak truth to power, because it can be scary. However, please don't use the irrational reasoning of a social phobic to try dissuade those who want to stand up for what's right.
And before the retarded replies of "WHY R U FORCING UR LUNIX ON ME COMMIE", note that my opinion here has nothing to do with the particular companies or philosophies in this discussion. I support this criticism of Microsoft because I think lying is bad, and it's pretty clear that "Get the Facts" is not very honest.
Dear OP,
To successfully argue a point, one needs three things: a claim, data to support that claim, and reasoning that shows why the data is relevant to the claim. In your post here you make a claim, but you don't provide any data or reasoning in support of it. Because of this, your claim is completely unconvincing.
If you wish to clarify your position, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about it.
As for his point, I think it was basically to make a (fallacious) argument from authority. Something like "how dare you question our conclusion, we are the powerful!". It's really quite an arrogant thing to say, especially when he later falsely accuses Mr. NYCL of putting forth a fallacy.
it will also presumably be a lot cheaper than buying either a PS3
I don't believe this. The PS3's current price reflects the fact that Sony is not only the gatekeeper for that platform but also that they manufacture a bunch of its components themselves. MS has a disadvantage here because they can't do neat tricks like deciding "we're not going to make any profit on parts X, Y, and Z until it costs less to produce them".
The funny thing is that it seems like MS has been trying really hard as of late to make their console business profitable. If they really are going forward with a Bluray 360, they're in a really tough spot: it will be a PR coup for Sony if costs more than a PS3.
Of course, this type of PR win will only sway the Sony/MS battle for all the nerds who argue about video games on the Internet. They will both still be trailing Nintendo.
[It's] just a souped up version of the previous GTA games.
I may never play this game (I have no plans to buy a 360 or PSTripple). However, IV looks like a GTA I'd actually enjoy. I played 3 and Vice City a little, and own San Andreas. And while I think they're OK, that game engine was so shitty it really sapped my desire to keep playing.
Sure, SA had miles and miles of city and country to drive through and tons of things to do. However I really can't play a game for dozens of hours that has shitty collision detection and mediocre controls.
It looks like IV fixes that stuff. I'd probably love it.
The OP claimed that Nintendo still holds the copyright to all the games they released for Super Nintendo. I pointed out that this may not be the case; the only way to be sure would be to dig up the copyright records. The OP responds that "Nintendo hasn't done that". I point out, again, that they really would need to dig up the records to actually prove this.
Yet for some reason you think that it is me who should be looking up these records. This reasoning makes no sense. The OP, not me, is the one making unsusbstantiated claims (copyright status) about a third party (Nintendo). This means that the burden of proof is on the OP, not me.
You again fail to cite any actual proof of what you're claiming. Where are the copyright records that prove Nintendo still holds all these copyrights? A copyright notice on a work does not prove that a person/company still holds that copyright today, nor does it prove that they ever did.
However, play it with a five year old, my god, you'll go insane. It's like playing Contra all over again.
I used to be that kid! I'd try and play two-player with my cousin or some older friend. After a while I'd just give up and watch them play, oohing and aahing at how awesome they were.
I specifically remember playing Contra once, where every time we'd get to a tricky jump, he'd have to kill off all the enemies, take my controller, hop through the jumps, and then we'd continue. I think I died off when we reached the waterfall level, because when one player got too far ahead, the screen would scroll up past the lagging player, killing me instantly.
Some of the confusion here stems from the use of the term "abandonware". The OP is not correct in saying that (all) SNES roms are abandonware. However, the case of CherryRoms shows that most SNES roms are fine to download. To stay legal, just find a ROM site that complies with takedown notices.
Moving on, it's unfortunate that you added to the confusion over terms by inventing the action of "abandoning copyright". I'm pretty sure this is not an actual legal term, as I've never heard of a person or company filing their "copyright abandonment" papers with the copyright office. The correct thing to say here would be "Nintendo still holds the copyright to their Super NES games".
Further, your statement about Nintendo holding the copyrights to their SNES games is completely unsubstantiated. The obvious retort to this is "obviously they do because of the Berne Convention". However this reply fails to account for how business is actually done: video game companies often farm out development or other aspects of game making to third parties. Have you researched whether all these copyrights were transferred (and transferred correctly) to Nintendo? Also, I've read of companies sometimes putting their copyrights into the public domain as tax writeoffs. Have you researched whether Nintendo's done this? If you haven't, you really shouldn't make such broad claims about the copyrights they hold, as you have no way of knowing if that claim is correct.
I'd also like to clarify some other ambiguous aspects of your post before they create further confusion:
1. Nintendo has not abandoned copyright in Super NES games.
This statement could be interpreted to mean that Nintendo holds the copyright for all SNES games. This is not the case.
2. They are still being republished on Virtual Console.
This is rather nitpicky, but it's important to note that something can still be "published", even if it's fallen into the public domain (e.g. go to a bookstore's "classics" section). If this were the case, it would not be correct to claim that a Nintendo holds that copyright.
I think we're both right.