*Is* this a trademark dispute? If it was just about the name, Scrabulous could probably change it without losing too many users (would "Frabulous" do?). It seems Hasbro want to kill Scrabulous at any cost.
It's been updated. Apparently the decision to block US and Canada from Scrabulous was the Scrabulous developers' own decision, presumably a pre-emptive move to prevent themselves being sued under US law (or Canadian law, for some reason). Curious that it has occurred at the same time as Hasbro launch their own version - maybe a deal was struck after all..?
I can't tell you how many recordings on the net are either way to quiet (e.g. I can't hear speech even at max volume) or too loud and that change in mid-video (e.g. person walks away from or closer to mic).
I also didn't realise the big part the internet had played in Dizzee's success (and yes, I'm a fan), but this is precisely the kind of thing the major labels would like to prevent. Independents spreading their music by word of mouth through downloads and YouTube completely borks their business model, which relies on control of popular taste.
So props to you for working with people rather than against them. Like I said, the majors don't deserve this money - give it directly to artists. Maybe not retrospectively in royalties, which could turn into an accounting nightmare, but how about upfront to pay for gear or recording time for new artists?
Something like you suggest has also been proposed today - £30 a year for immunity to prosecution. Not sure if these announcements are related or not, but that does does seem about the right price to me, perhaps even a little low - around $1.25 a month.
But one has to wonder whether the major labels deserve this, the way they've been behaving? If the money went directly to artists, though, and copyrights lifted from non-profit digital copying, now that would be a perfect solution.
I don't mind ads in yellow pages, because if I pick it up I'm actually wanting to be sold something. It's the rest of the time that bothers me. This recent New York Times article attempts to show how marketing can be a good thing (persuading people to wash their hands more often), but inadvertently proves the point that marketing really does have an effect on our habits.
One wonders what life would be like if advertising was only allowed in certain situations, like when you're actually searching for something. My guess is people would feel less need to buy stuff all the time - a very different but not necessarily unworkable economy.
There was no standard! In order to implement it at all, they had to do it "in a non-standard way".
When Microsoft were trying to take over the browser market, they didn't just leverage their desktop monopoly, they innovated. Netscape were already doing the same. Often their ideas didn't mesh, which meant headaches for developers, but they also copied each other's ideas. The first browser war made the web the multimedia platform it is today.
You've hit on something there. I started messing around with computers when I was 12, and got such a kick out of getting them to do the simplest things, like print messages on the screen. And I can't say the thrill of getting one of these dumb lumps of matter to do what I want it to has never really gone away.
I think Python would be an excellent starting point, but the language I would choose for a kid's first taste of programming is javascript. They're already familiar with browsers, and within seconds they can be bossing one around, leveraging all its graphical power.
Yep, all you'll need then, so that you don't have to crane your neck forward all day long, is a chair that keeps your body comfortably face down, hovering a couple of feet above your desk, parallel to the floor. A modified version of this would do it. Good for saving office space, too, as employers could make use of all the currently wasted space near the ceiling by stacking us up horizontally.
Since I started using a trackball instead of a mouse I no longer have the rather scary is-this-the-beginning-of-RSI? cramps I had started getting in my right wrist.
2a) Pay your existing workforce less (ie keep pay increases below inflation); 2b) Sack them and replace them with low-paid new graduates; 2c) outsource to a country where wages are lower;
However, it's actually worse than that, because profit is measured by its rate of change. Investors will withdraw their money if the profit rate of another company is higher. But the more money you've already made, the more extra profit you must make to make that percentage look attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
*Is* this a trademark dispute? If it was just about the name, Scrabulous could probably change it without losing too many users (would "Frabulous" do?). It seems Hasbro want to kill Scrabulous at any cost.
You are so right. It is important to maintain the charade of intellectual property, especially if lives are at stake.
It's been updated. Apparently the decision to block US and Canada from Scrabulous was the Scrabulous developers' own decision, presumably a pre-emptive move to prevent themselves being sued under US law (or Canadian law, for some reason). Curious that it has occurred at the same time as Hasbro launch their own version - maybe a deal was struck after all..?
Especially if you're a lion.
Pretty sure the board is copyrighted (though, hell, the game is so old oughtn't that to have expired by now?)
As long as we're sure it was on a collision course to begin with...
Houston, we have just recalculated the trajectory. Now it is going to hit us.
I can't tell you how many recordings on the net are either way to quiet (e.g. I can't hear speech even at max volume) or too loud and that change in mid-video (e.g. person walks away from or closer to mic).
You can tell me, I'm a doctor.
Carfeul; I have a patent on posting to remove incorrect mods.
Obviously no one is going to be able to get this type of information on unauthorized/illegal music downloads.
Once the levy was in place, it wouldn't be illegal, though. And Big Champagne already does a pretty good job of tracking it.
I also didn't realise the big part the internet had played in Dizzee's success (and yes, I'm a fan), but this is precisely the kind of thing the major labels would like to prevent. Independents spreading their music by word of mouth through downloads and YouTube completely borks their business model, which relies on control of popular taste.
So props to you for working with people rather than against them. Like I said, the majors don't deserve this money - give it directly to artists. Maybe not retrospectively in royalties, which could turn into an accounting nightmare, but how about upfront to pay for gear or recording time for new artists?
Oops, you're right! I halved the number of pounds instead of doubling.
I think the BPI's undercover /. users are out in force today with mod points in hand.
How easy is it to become a second tier ISP?
Why is this person being modded down?
Something like you suggest has also been proposed today - £30 a year for immunity to prosecution. Not sure if these announcements are related or not, but that does does seem about the right price to me, perhaps even a little low - around $1.25 a month.
But one has to wonder whether the major labels deserve this, the way they've been behaving? If the money went directly to artists, though, and copyrights lifted from non-profit digital copying, now that would be a perfect solution.
I don't mind ads in yellow pages, because if I pick it up I'm actually wanting to be sold something. It's the rest of the time that bothers me. This recent New York Times article attempts to show how marketing can be a good thing (persuading people to wash their hands more often), but inadvertently proves the point that marketing really does have an effect on our habits.
One wonders what life would be like if advertising was only allowed in certain situations, like when you're actually searching for something. My guess is people would feel less need to buy stuff all the time - a very different but not necessarily unworkable economy.
There was no standard! In order to implement it at all, they had to do it "in a non-standard way".
When Microsoft were trying to take over the browser market, they didn't just leverage their desktop monopoly, they innovated. Netscape were already doing the same. Often their ideas didn't mesh, which meant headaches for developers, but they also copied each other's ideas. The first browser war made the web the multimedia platform it is today.
It was quite a bit faster, though. And you got to learn FORTH rather than bloody BASIC.
You've hit on something there. I started messing around with computers when I was 12, and got such a kick out of getting them to do the simplest things, like print messages on the screen. And I can't say the thrill of getting one of these dumb lumps of matter to do what I want it to has never really gone away.
I think Python would be an excellent starting point, but the language I would choose for a kid's first taste of programming is javascript. They're already familiar with browsers, and within seconds they can be bossing one around, leveraging all its graphical power.
Such as Windows Explorer?
We would also be living in a parallel universe where I have a puppy.
Yep, all you'll need then, so that you don't have to crane your neck forward all day long, is a chair that keeps your body comfortably face down, hovering a couple of feet above your desk, parallel to the floor. A modified version of this would do it. Good for saving office space, too, as employers could make use of all the currently wasted space near the ceiling by stacking us up horizontally.
Since I started using a trackball instead of a mouse I no longer have the rather scary is-this-the-beginning-of-RSI? cramps I had started getting in my right wrist.
The parent is not off-topic, you insensitive mod!
Oh. Capital 'A'. I thought you were standing outside a greengrocer's. 'Cause it's well known that people who eat fruit don't get any sex.
Point 2) breaks down as:
2a) Pay your existing workforce less (ie keep pay increases below inflation);
2b) Sack them and replace them with low-paid new graduates;
2c) outsource to a country where wages are lower;
However, it's actually worse than that, because profit is measured by its rate of change. Investors will withdraw their money if the profit rate of another company is higher. But the more money you've already made, the more extra profit you must make to make that percentage look attractive.