at the same time you want to use this content in an un-authorized/un-approved way.
Actually, it seems that the poster wants it to be approved and just wants the appropriate price tag attached. People are going to consume the media in this way, it's up to the companies to step up and accept money for it, otherwise they'll be losing out. That's the reality of it.
Many games will never be released for purchase because all of the various copyrights/licenses cannot be tracked down, or the companies are simply defunct. The only legal way to get them is to wait until they become public domain.
The President of the USA should have a salary of minimum wage, given that it is considered as sufficient to live off of. Why should the President demand more money? The "job" is really an opportunity to make things better, and being able to make things better should be the reward in itself. If the PotUSA does a good job, then their reward will be a better country.
Additionally, future GOT tenders for IT equipment will specify that the equipment must be Microsoft compatible, which is currently prohibited by the Tunisian open software policy.
This seems to be a point of contention. Can anyone explain why/how Microsoft compatibility is prohibited? Just because it can run MS software doesn't mean it will, the same hardware could very well run exclusively "open" software. The open software itself could also be compatible with MS hardware and software, providing drivers that work with hardware under the Microsoft label (mice, keyboards, webcams, etc), and be capable of reading and exporting to MS file formats (.doc,.xls, etc).
The ranting and posturing about evil people organizing is misguided too. Shit happens, and you don't choose when you feel the urge. In this case, people don't care about the harm they are doing because they care more about taking advantage of the situation to feed some short term desire. Sounds like that's what the UK government is trying to do as well..
Is he enjoying the benefits of sleep as well, although he remains productive during the sleep period? Presumably he doesn't spend the entire time drawing, but how restful is his sleep exactly, and how long does he feel he needs to sleep to remain productive during the day?
They've significantly raised the bar for any new entries into their market. Now it's a game of who lasts the longest. They've completely ended the chance of an up-and-coming disruptive competitor that changes the game and gives the biggies a run for their money. Now that has to come internally from one of the big 5 (or whatever the correct number is). Each one hoping they can pare down or absorb the others. There's too much greed here to give up on that game so soon. It hasn't become disastrous yet -- you only bail out at the last minute.
I'm sure they'd rather have hackers as customers than as enemies. Let us boot into a custom environment, I don't care if you cut us off from anything DRM-laden, I didn't want that anyway. Even if I do, I can boot into that environment. Choice is good. Just don't be an asshole and remove the option of booting into a custom environment "in future products" or somesuch bullshit.
There's no doubt that the generic and modular hardware and multiple software options contributed (even propelled) the PC desktop market. We not only need to be able to be able to customize our tablets' software, but to be able to choose different hardware vendors as well. Android is doing a good job, it can satisfy power users as well as casual users, and power users don't mind being cut off from drm-encumbered services if it means we can customize as much as we want. That's a good trade-off, compared to being locked in to the DRM environment with no choice whatsoever, or being forced to crack it and jump through hoops every time there's an update and being vulnerable if you don't elect to update because you're working on jailbreaking it first.
This is an interesting idea that has shown up elsewhere... In OS X, there is the "full screen" mode, and many windows also have an oblong button in the top right which is used to show/hide extra toolbars, and many apps also use this to switch between "Simple" and "complex" modes, including the Finder.
The merit would be to force developers to include different interfaces for the same underlying program, and to consider this type of workflow during development. This definitely sounds like a good thing, because many desktop programs are very robust but lack similar tools in the burgeoning touch interface market.
Tablets are already very powerful and capable of handling these applications, but quickly porting them over would be clunky. Many of these apps would be perfectly usable with a touch interface, but are not available for those platforms despite the practicality. Audacity could work great with a touch interface for example, but we don't want to create an entirely new application when the same one could be used with a slightly different interface.
I think that positioning the interface choice so predominantly on the desktop will spur the maturation of touch interface on already existing applications, and it will be good for users because they will already be familiar, and will be able to switch back if they can't find a certain option. They'll be able to learn at their own pace without having the rug pulled out from under them. It will also help developers design more modular programs, and slowly build up the touch interface portion instead of having to design two separate applications and make either/or trade-offs for both of them.
It would be great to re-use all of our code and be able to switch from a touch interface to a mouse/keyboard interface at will. Dock your tablet and it becomes a desktop... for real this time. Take the screen off your desktop and you can walk around with it. Maybe future monitors will have lower-powered hardware built in so we can do this, and snap the monitor back on when we need more horsepower or different input options.
but with the Internet the borders between countries no longer exist.
Except that now streaming web sites are starting to cut out IPs from other countries. They're not exactly learning their lesson here but trying to apply the same flaws that are inherent in previous methods to these new methods.
Because it leaves users with no way to interface with said tech product in order to access and restore data. Outdated support software (drivers, client software, etc) will no longer work on new OSes, and eventually even though the tech product still functions, it is effectively useless. If a tech product is considered failed, its interface documents should be made public domain so that the community may support the device so that it does not end up as garbage and waste, and so that the users may recover their important data.
The fact is that most management simply does not have any appreciation or understanding of good coding practices
And they don't even value how a software engineer thinks. At my job, I've thought of many ways to combine and automate many tasks through the use of simple applications. While users would previously open various documents, copy and paste between them, and update from various email notifications, I have designed systems that keep central lists of information and are able to automate the creation/updating of these documents.
They used to spend hours setting up tabs, fiddling with borders and fonts, and switching between various documents without even knowing how to highlight, say, entire columns in a spreadsheet, and not even knowing shortcuts like CTRL+C and ALT+Tab. Now the results are perfect every time, and don't contain a myriad of errors, and users can even include markup in other documents that will automagically be filled in with correct and up-to-date data.
Management in companies all over don't even know where software begins to fit in, and how it can help save time and money. I had to work on this crap in secret because they had no concept of what was possible, and even when I tried explaining it they thought it was technobabble. They had to see it in practice, and now suddenly they consider it a miracle and want me to learn more about each department so I can find other ways to improve things. Does IT need a bigger/different presence in the workplace to address these things when the laymanager can't even see the potential/possibility to begin with?
This was the same bullshit that was brought up during the "rise" of episodic games. Look, some games need to be long, some need to be short, and others need to be in the middle. I don't want to play 6 hour RPGs and 80 hour FPS campaigns. Besides, games are already shorter, they make you pay for anything outside a straight-up campaign via DLC. And even then some charge you for epilogues and chapters that flesh out situations/characters but claim "Oh you didn't really need that to fully enjoy the game." This is just another money grab. Or maybe they want to make shorter games because they can't seem to finish the games they put out *cough*Fable3*cough*.
There's still companies willing to pay for it, so there's still some greedy fucks willing to take it. The desire/benefit of getting the extra edge will prompt the greedy to distort laws/policies in order to profit from having something that others with more scruples (or who simply aren't in a position to cover their ass with expensive lawyers, to compete in terms of what they can get away with) won't have. It needs to become undesirable to carry out this practice, and for that there needs to be severe penalties, or consumer awareness such that it gives those who practice a negative enough perception that it causes sales to drop. Spam is usually delegated and it is not obvious who is (indirectly) behind it, so the latter will probably not happen any time soon.
You're right about it being interesting and even informative to see the old style logos/brands in more historical settings (Volkswagon ad in Mad Men), and even in Back To The Future 2, I found it great the way that they represented brands in the future (Jaws 3D, the Barbie hoverboard, stylized soda bottles, etc). I can see the entertainment value in some of that.
While I can see that brands can be represented realistically during present-day settings, on billboards, in the background, etc... I get a little closer to an aneurysm whenever I see it. Call it over-exposure to advertising I guess. Take E.T. for example. The predominance of Reese's Pieces is a bit gratuitous, in that they really don't do anything creatively with the branded object; It might as well be a generic thing, so I wish it would be, and that they could be creative with it in inventing their own brand.
Since it's a kids movie, they could something that would be funny for kids, they could invent a wild product. Then maybe a company could actually launch that product if the reaction is positive enough. But at least that would be after the fact, instead of it being calculated. The movie could still make money from selling the rights to their made-up brand, instead of selling advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
at the same time you want to use this content in an un-authorized/un-approved way.
Actually, it seems that the poster wants it to be approved and just wants the appropriate price tag attached. People are going to consume the media in this way, it's up to the companies to step up and accept money for it, otherwise they'll be losing out. That's the reality of it.
Many games will never be released for purchase because all of the various copyrights/licenses cannot be tracked down, or the companies are simply defunct. The only legal way to get them is to wait until they become public domain.
Because we need people to care about it for it to work? With OSS, what goes around comes around.
Hackers kill people all the time!
The President of the USA should have a salary of minimum wage, given that it is considered as sufficient to live off of. Why should the President demand more money? The "job" is really an opportunity to make things better, and being able to make things better should be the reward in itself. If the PotUSA does a good job, then their reward will be a better country.
Additionally, future GOT tenders for IT equipment will specify that the equipment must be Microsoft compatible, which is currently prohibited by the Tunisian open software policy.
This seems to be a point of contention. Can anyone explain why/how Microsoft compatibility is prohibited? Just because it can run MS software doesn't mean it will, the same hardware could very well run exclusively "open" software. The open software itself could also be compatible with MS hardware and software, providing drivers that work with hardware under the Microsoft label (mice, keyboards, webcams, etc), and be capable of reading and exporting to MS file formats (.doc, .xls, etc).
The ranting and posturing about evil people organizing is misguided too. Shit happens, and you don't choose when you feel the urge. In this case, people don't care about the harm they are doing because they care more about taking advantage of the situation to feed some short term desire. Sounds like that's what the UK government is trying to do as well..
They're bullshit artists, they get turds polished up real nice. I guess PR are the Jawas of the corporate world.
That position is just not attractive unless you want to be a bully.
Is he enjoying the benefits of sleep as well, although he remains productive during the sleep period? Presumably he doesn't spend the entire time drawing, but how restful is his sleep exactly, and how long does he feel he needs to sleep to remain productive during the day?
They've significantly raised the bar for any new entries into their market. Now it's a game of who lasts the longest. They've completely ended the chance of an up-and-coming disruptive competitor that changes the game and gives the biggies a run for their money. Now that has to come internally from one of the big 5 (or whatever the correct number is). Each one hoping they can pare down or absorb the others. There's too much greed here to give up on that game so soon. It hasn't become disastrous yet -- you only bail out at the last minute.
I'm sure they'd rather have hackers as customers than as enemies. Let us boot into a custom environment, I don't care if you cut us off from anything DRM-laden, I didn't want that anyway. Even if I do, I can boot into that environment. Choice is good. Just don't be an asshole and remove the option of booting into a custom environment "in future products" or somesuch bullshit.
There's no doubt that the generic and modular hardware and multiple software options contributed (even propelled) the PC desktop market. We not only need to be able to be able to customize our tablets' software, but to be able to choose different hardware vendors as well. Android is doing a good job, it can satisfy power users as well as casual users, and power users don't mind being cut off from drm-encumbered services if it means we can customize as much as we want. That's a good trade-off, compared to being locked in to the DRM environment with no choice whatsoever, or being forced to crack it and jump through hoops every time there's an update and being vulnerable if you don't elect to update because you're working on jailbreaking it first.
This is an interesting idea that has shown up elsewhere... In OS X, there is the "full screen" mode, and many windows also have an oblong button in the top right which is used to show/hide extra toolbars, and many apps also use this to switch between "Simple" and "complex" modes, including the Finder.
The merit would be to force developers to include different interfaces for the same underlying program, and to consider this type of workflow during development. This definitely sounds like a good thing, because many desktop programs are very robust but lack similar tools in the burgeoning touch interface market.
Tablets are already very powerful and capable of handling these applications, but quickly porting them over would be clunky. Many of these apps would be perfectly usable with a touch interface, but are not available for those platforms despite the practicality. Audacity could work great with a touch interface for example, but we don't want to create an entirely new application when the same one could be used with a slightly different interface.
I think that positioning the interface choice so predominantly on the desktop will spur the maturation of touch interface on already existing applications, and it will be good for users because they will already be familiar, and will be able to switch back if they can't find a certain option. They'll be able to learn at their own pace without having the rug pulled out from under them. It will also help developers design more modular programs, and slowly build up the touch interface portion instead of having to design two separate applications and make either/or trade-offs for both of them.
It would be great to re-use all of our code and be able to switch from a touch interface to a mouse/keyboard interface at will. Dock your tablet and it becomes a desktop... for real this time. Take the screen off your desktop and you can walk around with it. Maybe future monitors will have lower-powered hardware built in so we can do this, and snap the monitor back on when we need more horsepower or different input options.
Just because the cops don't know how to get a good deal doesn't mean nobody else should.
but with the Internet the borders between countries no longer exist.
Except that now streaming web sites are starting to cut out IPs from other countries. They're not exactly learning their lesson here but trying to apply the same flaws that are inherent in previous methods to these new methods.
So we should attack our problems now instead of letting them grow. Just because they're not as bad doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on them.
You can buy peripherals for the PS3 and 360 (and others) that allow M+K on games that support the controller only. There is even a PS3 controller emulator that you can use on a Linux PC that allows you to use your PC's M+K on the PS3 via bluetooth.
I guess they're too dumb to use a scanner and an empty DVD case.
I gotta put my chips in and say thanks. This site has helped me become more of a geek than I already was. And I love it.
Because it leaves users with no way to interface with said tech product in order to access and restore data. Outdated support software (drivers, client software, etc) will no longer work on new OSes, and eventually even though the tech product still functions, it is effectively useless. If a tech product is considered failed, its interface documents should be made public domain so that the community may support the device so that it does not end up as garbage and waste, and so that the users may recover their important data.
The fact is that most management simply does not have any appreciation or understanding of good coding practices
And they don't even value how a software engineer thinks. At my job, I've thought of many ways to combine and automate many tasks through the use of simple applications. While users would previously open various documents, copy and paste between them, and update from various email notifications, I have designed systems that keep central lists of information and are able to automate the creation/updating of these documents.
They used to spend hours setting up tabs, fiddling with borders and fonts, and switching between various documents without even knowing how to highlight, say, entire columns in a spreadsheet, and not even knowing shortcuts like CTRL+C and ALT+Tab. Now the results are perfect every time, and don't contain a myriad of errors, and users can even include markup in other documents that will automagically be filled in with correct and up-to-date data.
Management in companies all over don't even know where software begins to fit in, and how it can help save time and money. I had to work on this crap in secret because they had no concept of what was possible, and even when I tried explaining it they thought it was technobabble. They had to see it in practice, and now suddenly they consider it a miracle and want me to learn more about each department so I can find other ways to improve things. Does IT need a bigger/different presence in the workplace to address these things when the laymanager can't even see the potential/possibility to begin with?
This was the same bullshit that was brought up during the "rise" of episodic games. Look, some games need to be long, some need to be short, and others need to be in the middle. I don't want to play 6 hour RPGs and 80 hour FPS campaigns. Besides, games are already shorter, they make you pay for anything outside a straight-up campaign via DLC. And even then some charge you for epilogues and chapters that flesh out situations/characters but claim "Oh you didn't really need that to fully enjoy the game." This is just another money grab. Or maybe they want to make shorter games because they can't seem to finish the games they put out *cough*Fable3*cough*.
There's still companies willing to pay for it, so there's still some greedy fucks willing to take it. The desire/benefit of getting the extra edge will prompt the greedy to distort laws/policies in order to profit from having something that others with more scruples (or who simply aren't in a position to cover their ass with expensive lawyers, to compete in terms of what they can get away with) won't have. It needs to become undesirable to carry out this practice, and for that there needs to be severe penalties, or consumer awareness such that it gives those who practice a negative enough perception that it causes sales to drop. Spam is usually delegated and it is not obvious who is (indirectly) behind it, so the latter will probably not happen any time soon.
You're right about it being interesting and even informative to see the old style logos/brands in more historical settings (Volkswagon ad in Mad Men), and even in Back To The Future 2, I found it great the way that they represented brands in the future (Jaws 3D, the Barbie hoverboard, stylized soda bottles, etc). I can see the entertainment value in some of that.
While I can see that brands can be represented realistically during present-day settings, on billboards, in the background, etc... I get a little closer to an aneurysm whenever I see it. Call it over-exposure to advertising I guess. Take E.T. for example. The predominance of Reese's Pieces is a bit gratuitous, in that they really don't do anything creatively with the branded object; It might as well be a generic thing, so I wish it would be, and that they could be creative with it in inventing their own brand.
Since it's a kids movie, they could something that would be funny for kids, they could invent a wild product. Then maybe a company could actually launch that product if the reaction is positive enough. But at least that would be after the fact, instead of it being calculated. The movie could still make money from selling the rights to their made-up brand, instead of selling advertising.