You could make your audiobook with a text-to-speech program or get Patrick Stewart to read it -- doesn't matter either way its a derivative work.
A game recording is somebody demonstrating their skill, and/or teaching people how to accomplish similar things.
And he's got the soundtrack playing in the background, the voice work, the company logos... and all the art assets. You can't use all that commercially without permission.
Also, fair use has been seen to cover transformative copying. Moving from an interactive medium to a narrative/teaching medium might very well be construed as such
Fair use is a defense, meaning you now acknowledge that you are in fact making a derivative work that the original copyright owner would normally have rights to, but feel your use of their work is defensible within the scope of fair use. Is that now your position? Because it is a subtle but very significant shift from claiming your walk through video is a completely original work.
Now, assuming that is your position, then your argument about educational purposes is certainly relevant. In fact, whether the work is for commercial purposes or non-profit educational purposes is pretty much the very first criteria when evaluating a fair use defense.
So publishing it to youtube and collecting ad revenue for it is going to fall under which category do you think? It seems pretty clear its a for-profit commercial purpose to me.
You mean how companies *PAY* to have brand recognition, and thus often request that any competing brands aren't shown?
I like how you read exactly HALF of what I wrote. I specifically addressed product placement.
However, whether or not you pay them, or get them to pay you. You can't use the trademarks without permission; regardless of which way the money flows.
Need 4 Speed can't use unlicensed cars. Period. It doesn't matter whether Porsche pays EA for the rights or EA pays Porsche for the placement and gives them the rights.
Unless there is a licensing deal of SOME SORT, there are no rights, and then EA can't use Porsche trademarks.
And yes, people do post videos of their monopoly games online.
Of course they do. And Hasbro is free to raise a stink about it if they want to.
About.com has a video on how to play Risk, as do many others.
Are the authors collecting revenue from it? That, at first blush, seems much more instructional/non-profit educational then gameplay-videos on youtube for ad revenue.
What about a written account of a playthough that's published and sold for money? Is that a "derivative work" that's commercialised?
Probably not. What 'major copy-protected elements of the original' does that contain?
I suppose if it were a dialog heavy adventure game, and you reproduced the entire dialog transcript of your playthrough then at that point yes, it would be derivative.
Bottom line, is if you are looking to create an original work, without risk of it being derivative to commercialize it, don't create it entirely within someone elses copy-protected "universe" or sample someone elses copy protected universe in a recognizable way without permission up front. Its not rocket science.
And creating a gameplay video does not create a derivative work of the game.
Look up what a derivative work is. Then come back.
Recording just the audio of you playing the game and releasing that as a song is a derivative work. Do you really think adding the video somehow makes it less a derivative work?
Even just SAMPLING the audio from the game and including it in an otherwise original new rap song technically requires getting the rights.
Reading a book requires no special skill (beyond the ability to read).
Says someone who has no appreciation for a good audiobook. A good 'reader' provides lots of value add.
Also, listening to an audiobook may remove the reason for somebody to purchase/read a book, but watching a game "walkthrough" doesn't remove the incentive to purchase the game (unless it sucks).
That really makes no difference to copyright law. But even if it did, I think most people watching game walkthroughs already have the game; so they aren't motivated to buy it anyway.
If I record a video of myself and buddies playing a game of Monopoly
And you are publishing it online for ad revenue? Do you not live in the real world? The one where TV shows have fake brands for everything, because they know they don't have the rights to use real brands copyrights and trademarks.
Of course you can't do that. If you made a TV show or movie, and wanted to have a scene with your characters playing monopoly (actual monopoly, rather than just a generic board game that's similar to monopoly) then you know you damned well need to clear that with Hasbro. Either pay them, or get them to pay you if you can convince them its worthwhile product placement... but under no circumstances can you just use the monopoly trademarks without permission.
What makes you think loading a video to youtube to collect ad revenue is somehow different?
Every time you use a loop, call a function or declare a variable etc., the compiler replaces that with its own copyrighted machine code that you did not write. Your executable is a patchwork of copyrighted code from the compiler.
Its not "replaced" its transformed. The output is a derivative work of the input source code, transformed by an algorithm. The algorithm is not 'creative', and retains no copyright over the output.
Now, having said that I suppose some dirtbag compiler maker could require you to sign an license agreement that assigns them (some) copyright over the output, but that would be due to your license agreement, not due to copyright law.
Apparently, yes. From TFA:
Yeah, I'm not sure what legal theory Nintendo would be using there. But it sounded to me more like simple over-reaching and over-zealousness with the 'claims' than there being any actual legal argument to support them; especially as the copyright claims you referred to in your quote were being made by INDmusic and TuneCore rather than Nintendo itself.
A user who is too scared to be in developer mode is acknowledging they don't have sufficient knowledge to judge extensions.
But their IT manager at work does; and he shouldn't have to put everyone's chrome into developer mode just to install a given company improved extension.
One can delegate making informed judgement to someone else, without having that someone else automatically be google.
At any rate, going after customers who are publicly advertising your product without charge to an audience likely to buy it might be one of the stupidest business strategies I've heard of.
An audience likely to buy it? Or an audience that already bought it? Seriously. How many people watche game playthroughs of games they don't own. I don't even watch them for most games unless I've already more or less mastered it, and just want to fine tune some skill or other, or maybe see just how to get some secret/easter egg thing.
I'd say the majority of people watching game videos have already got the game. Especially for Nintendo games.
But hell, even 'esports' -- I'd say the VAST majority either already have the game or are only interested in watching other people play it... the number that are sitting there 'thinking of buying it' is nearly zero.
Maybe they aren't stupid after all, and the ad revenue they are taking far exceeds the extra sales they'd get by not taking some of the ad revenue.
They trying to stop the malware stuff for 90% of users.
There are plenty of actual solutions for that.
a) Block the extensions that don't come through the app store, but let the user enable them one by one -- without scary 'developer mode' (and opening up the floodgates)
b) Reputation systems -- allow 'reputable' extensions; revert to a) above for the rest. Google and the AV vendors don't want to get their hands dirty classifying useless shit nobody wants as the useless shit nobody wants, fine let the 'community' handle the reputation.
And for anyone who really wants it, they can manually enable it.
output of a game being played != a copy of the game.
Its clearly a derivative work; and when published to the internet with ad revenue attched to it, then it becomes a commercial 'for profit' derivative work.
Its a no-brainer that Nintendo has all kinds of rights over not only the gameplay videos but any profits from them.
It's the same as someone buying a book, and then publishing ad-supported audio of them reading it.
Nintendo allowing the gameplay videos and sharing the ad revenue to the creators of the videos really is about as reasonable an outcome as it gets.
To be completely honest, its more lenient by far than the law requires.
So what is this system where markets are not regulated called, then?
The system we have? Capitalism. Its just far from the ideal. So when you say "Isn't capitalism working precisely as it should", the answer is "No", its working the way it works when conditions are not ideal.
it is not a fault of the system, but the law of supply and demand working against Stross.
It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with overall supply and demand for Stross's work. Neither was objectively changed. The supply is the same. And the demand? The same number of customers should want same number of books at the same price as before. They just have to visit a different online store to get them.
So why does the demand for Stross novels not get met by the supply of Stross novels via the new channels? Something isn't right.
The suggestion that Amazon can maintain its dictatorial monopoly is ridiculous and there are an endless list of examples countering it in economical history.
Agreed, but waiting on the slow burn of history to sort the market out rarely works out for the little guys.They are trapped in the present. And they'll be bankrupt before the market corrects itself.
This doesn't happen in an "ideal capitalism". This is not "precisely how its supposed to work"; This is how it DOES work in the real world though, because the real world is far from an ideal capitalism.
Is this not just precise how capitalism is supposed to work?
Actually no. Not even close. This is how its supposed to work: the Charlie Strosses would just sell through different channels. The customers would buy through the other channels. Amazon would miss the income, and would pay what it took to get the novels (and customers) back.
But that requires a competitive marketplace with multiple competing channels. If amazon owns enough of the market, then the Charlie Strosses can't stay solvent just selling through other channels. This gives amazon more power to DICTATE pricing than a functioning market would normally allow.
I'm always glad to see new developments in materials science, but one of the potential issues that jumped out at me when I see them looking at plant based materials for cars is whether it will be tasty.
Not that I envision a horde of Panda's attacking our new bamboo cars, but insects and rodents might well. There was a change made to the plastic sheath in automotive wiring some years ago to use a soy based coating, for example, and it turns out mice liked to eat it; dramatically increasing rodent damage to vehicle wiring -- I seem to recall an article where at least one manufacturer combated the issue by adding 'spices' to the coating to make it less appetizing.
No idea if that's a concern with bamboo; but its something to consider; along with any number of other things maybe nobody has thought about. Only way to find out is to try, right:)
Its not unreasonable at all over the life of a car, but 136,000 miles to BREAK EVEN on going with electric IS on the crazy high side.
The type of person who buys a brand new car, isn't likely still the same owner at 130,000 miles. So odds are he won't ever break even unless he can resell the car at 3 or 5 years for quite a bit more than the gasoline version.
And that's not a gimme, because by now the batteries are possibly out of warranty and their end of life is within sight. If they'll need to be replaced at 100k and the care has 60k on it now that's going to be a major factor. Even if they'll go to 150k, and the car is at 60k... if I plan to drive it for 3 years and put 15-20k on it annually, when I turn around to sell it its probably going to have negative resale value.
I'm not sure what point you're getting at, but you're going to have to provide me at least some scraps of data if you're trying to make the case that American drones have often bombed weddings where everyone seems to be completely innocent except for one guy who is maybe or maybe not a terrorist. That's the situation we're discussing.
Why is ~that~ the situation we're discussing?
Because if even a handful of guests are innocent what we're doing is completely indefensible to me, and even if you wanted to justify it somehow, its still going to be counterproductive because its going to manufacture new "terrorists" out of the survivors and extended family's of the rest of the wedding guests.
However, I'm 99.999% certain that none of them were terrorists or supporting terrorists.
And if you and your wife lived in Pakistan, and had Pakistani friends and families? You'd still be 99.999% sure that someone somewhere in one of the families wasn't a -suspect- by the United States of terrorism?
And that's you having the wedding; imagine you are someone else now invited to one as a guest, where you may not even know the bride or groom or either if you are +1 to someone who does...
For example, that means if you select an executed prisoner at random, the odds he was innocent is several times HIGHER than the odds he shares your birthday. (0.027%) Its HIGHER than the odds he shares your 'birth-week'. (1.9%)
A recent peer reviewed study puts the innocence rate at LEAST 4% as a conservative. If we executed one inmate a week (which is fairly close to actuality), we'd kill at least 2 innocents every year on average, and almost surely more.
Surely that's far too high for you to swallow as acceptable? It is for me.
Maybe they didn't. A not-insignificant number of death row inmates aren't even guilty.
And the point about wealth and having a better lawyer is quite valid too.
Personally, I'm not against the idea of the death penalty, but I can't support it in practice knowing that we kill the innocent sometimes along with the guilty.
Except I need a PC in my office; and I still want to play games in the living room. I still need a total of 2 devices; but I don't want to have to involve both of them to play a game if I can avoid it.
You really think people are going to pay hundreds of dollars for a steambox just to stream content from their PC to their TV? This concept is just a value-add,
Agreed.
Valve needs to make the steambox a compelling standalone product for people to buy it.
Agreed.
That's what people said about Ouya too. Just because it exists doesn't mean people are going to use it.
That's worlds apart.
The ouya is a new product, starting from near 0.
The steambox will already as-in right now today before its even been properly released run a substantial subset of Steam's library directly. And you can get access to the rest via streaming. So any gamer who has a 100+ games and a windows gaming PC can buy a steambox and play a chunk of them directly on it, and can stream the rest from his pc.
The PC gamer considering a steambox will ask which of my games can I use it with, and the answer will be "all of them".
That is definitely going to help get its foot in the door. Its a reasonably compelling platform already, and its not even released.
The ONLY thing it can do is increase the viability of linux as a direct target for game development.* The ONLY question is how well will it sell. If it sells a lot, then its a no brainer for game devs to target it.
And I think it has the potential to sell a lot, because unlike say Ouya or other alternatives it is just a regular PC under the hood, and it will run ones entire steam library (one way or another).
* on two fronts -- first by simply expanding the number of installed linux gaming pcs in the world; secondly by giving game developers a distro to target and some hardware profiles to provide official support for.
By the same token nobody WANTS to run Windows or Linux or OS X, they are merely a means to an end which - in this case - is to play games.
Missing the point. Nobody wants 2 devices to do the job of one.
So just install Windows on your steambox and you have can eliminate the game server completely AND get the full game library.
Those that want to go that route will just buy / build windows PCs.
Meanwhile, the fact that they ship with linux and will have valves marketing/sales muscle behind them mean that there will likely be a huge pile of installed Linux boxes in the nearish future.
Its silly to pretend that won't entice some development for the platofrm.
You don't know where Valve is heading with their proprietary Steam platform either.
Of course I don't. I am not even a huge fan of steam. I prefer to buy from GoG and HumbleBundle for the real DRM free options available (and I get most of my steam keys by that route vs directly from steam).
But your right, its certainly possible that Steam will shoot itself in the foot and go off the rails. But if it does the cool thing about both linux and windows (at least so far) is that other competing stores can and do show up and you can use your hardware with them. If steam implodes, so what?
But just having steam setting up its little steambox project waiting in the wings for Microsoft to shoot ITSELF in the foot may even be the pressure microsoft needs to avoid going completley off the rails itself. The real threat gamers actually theoretically could just en masse migrate off the Windows platform to "linux/valve" -- that might well be enough to keep Microsoft's worst ideas in check; and maybe even motivate them to go a bit out of their originally planned way to make sure Windows remains the best platform for games.
Ever tried running MS Office apps without a mouse?
Turns out being adept with keyboard shortcuts plus the touchscreen/ribbon actually works quite well.
I wouldn't want to go without a mouse and use a touchscreen on the the 24" screen on my desk. But a tablet on my lap on the couch... works a treat.
Ever tried connecting a Surface Pro to your company's Active Directory and implementing GPO?
Its exactly the same as the new win 8.1 dell optiplexes scattered around the company. EXACTLY THE SAME. It works fine.
Ever tried running your favourite MS software (I mean software developed using older versions of Visual Studio) on Windows 8+ versions?
That's why we have them. Because iPad doesn't run them at all, and nearly everything we need runs fine on them. We do have a few XP laptops kicking around for hardware interface stuff that just won't run on anything newer than XP but that's a separate issue, and nothing to do with Windows 8 or Surface Pro, as they won't working on Vista onwards. So a laptop with windows 7 pro isn't going to be any better.
A $300 desktop does it very well, and a $500 laptop does it better, and is portable besides.
And a surface pro 3 is just a smaller more expensive laptop, that is even more portable, and has a better battery life.
A tablet that doesn't win Windows 7 or XP is useless for business users.
No. Windows 8 is far better than Windows 7 is on a touch device. "8.1 update 1" is thoroughly decent and I don't personally really prefer 7 to it at this point; and the stuff I've seen with the "start menu" planned this year will pretty much end virtually all my complaints about it.
Where did 52 come from?? There's no 52 in the problem anywhere! And why are we adding 100?
Really? Original question: 321 - 148 = ??
So another way of asking question is, what do we need to add to 148 to get to 321 ?
We add 52 to 148 to get to 200, then its trivial to add 121 or 100+21 to get to 321. The 52 was trivial, because its the complement of 100. Or if you were having trouble, you 2 to get to 150, and then 50 to get to 200. (2+50 = 52)
I look at 321-148, and I just walk my way from 148 to 321:
In longest possible form: 148 + 2 = 150,// add 2 to get to 150 150 + 50 = 200// add 50 to get to 200 200 + 100 = 300// add 100 to get to 300 300 + 20 = 320// add 20 to get to 320 320+ 1 = 321// add 1 to get to 321
2+ 50 + 100 +20 + 1 = 173// take all the bits i needed to add to span from 148 to 321 and add them to get the total. That toal is the difference.
But I'm an adult so I don't need "longest possible form":
I just do:
148 + 52 = 200 200 + 121 = 321
That's where the 52 comes from by the way. Its the complement of 48. Anyone should be able to do that without even thinking about it.
And then
52 + 121 = 173
And for nearly all subtractions its the same 3 steps:
step 1 what do i need to get the nearest round number step 2 what do i need to get from that to the total
1271 - 1196
nearest suitable round number to 1196 = 1200, so I need 4, 1200 to 1271, is 71; 71 + 4 = 75
Doing this demonstrates lot more ability to actually THINK (look for easy numbers to work with decompose the actual numbers to them, and then reassemble them.
My daughter spent a lot of her math time making estimates, and decomposing numbers, thereby learning to how to select 'good numbers' for rounding such that its easy to calculate offsets from them. This ground work prepared her well for the technique and has an additional benefit... she has a much better sense of what the correct answer should look like. And she can even check her work to arbitrary precision by simply doing a partial process and discarding the smaller bits along way. Or even doing it iteratively first to an estimated result, and then compensate it to get to the actual.
Here's an example:
e.g. 75154 - 45332 becomes 75000 - 45000 = 30000 easy estimate; could call it done for most purposes. Oh? we need more? Ok... a closer answer is 100 more than that and 300 less... or 29800 closer still would be to add 50 and subtract 30 or 29820, add 4 subtract 2 = 29822
Which can be explained to them when they start working on algebra and simplifying equations, term re-ording, and so on, and they ALREADY understand it, because its how they already do arithmetic.
The rote techniques of addition and subtraction with borrows and carries ARE the parlor tricks.
Arguing that the mindless rote work of the traditional method is in anyway going to lead to students with a better understanding of math is ridiculous on its face.
if you're going to stream games from your gaming PC then the client doesn't have to be powerful enough to run those games so you spend your money on one decent game server and cheap low-end client(s).
Except nobody really WANTS to use a 'game server'; its merely a means to an end. That being able to play windows games on linux/steamboxes.
The target market will definitely prefer direct support for linux/steamboxes over having to use a gaming server.
However, the capability of using windows as a game server enables linux/steambox to get the installed base it needs to become a viable directly supported platform.
Meanwhile we don't really know where microsoft is heading. Subscription based OS? App-store-lockin unless you buy "Ultimate with developer keys and MSDN subscription"? In OS advertising? If a viable alternative gaming platform existed and was widely deployed there might be a lot of gamers more than willing to upgrade their steambox video card to play a new game than upgrade their windows gaming server.
Your example is extreme, but in the vast majority of cases it is clear to everyone (except perhaps small children) that these are bad dudes and it should just be common sense not to hang around them or do business with them. I have little sympathy for them, just as I would people who hang around organized criminals and get caught in the crossfire.
Let me put it simply... there were lots of people at my own wedding that I didn't know; and several who I'd never met before. One of my own groomsmen brought a +1 he met less than 1 weeks prior. And half the people in my wifes extended family I barely knew, nevermind THEIR +1s. And I had a fairly small wedding. ~40-50 people.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading VS narrating.
You could make your audiobook with a text-to-speech program or get Patrick Stewart to read it -- doesn't matter either way its a derivative work.
A game recording is somebody demonstrating their skill, and/or teaching people how to accomplish similar things.
And he's got the soundtrack playing in the background, the voice work, the company logos... and all the art assets. You can't use all that commercially without permission.
Also, fair use has been seen to cover transformative copying. Moving from an interactive medium to a narrative/teaching medium might very well be construed as such
Fair use is a defense, meaning you now acknowledge that you are in fact making a derivative work that the original copyright owner would normally have rights to, but feel your use of their work is defensible within the scope of fair use. Is that now your position? Because it is a subtle but very significant shift from claiming your walk through video is a completely original work.
Now, assuming that is your position, then your argument about educational purposes is certainly relevant. In fact, whether the work is for commercial purposes or non-profit educational purposes is pretty much the very first criteria when evaluating a fair use defense.
So publishing it to youtube and collecting ad revenue for it is going to fall under which category do you think? It seems pretty clear its a for-profit commercial purpose to me.
You mean how companies *PAY* to have brand recognition, and thus often request that any competing brands aren't shown?
I like how you read exactly HALF of what I wrote. I specifically addressed product placement.
However, whether or not you pay them, or get them to pay you. You can't use the trademarks without permission; regardless of which way the money flows.
Need 4 Speed can't use unlicensed cars. Period. It doesn't matter whether Porsche pays EA for the rights or EA pays Porsche for the placement and gives them the rights.
Unless there is a licensing deal of SOME SORT, there are no rights, and then EA can't use Porsche trademarks.
And yes, people do post videos of their monopoly games online.
Of course they do. And Hasbro is free to raise a stink about it if they want to.
About.com has a video on how to play Risk, as do many others.
Are the authors collecting revenue from it? That, at first blush, seems much more instructional/non-profit educational then gameplay-videos on youtube for ad revenue.
What about a written account of a playthough that's published and sold for money? Is that a "derivative work" that's commercialised?
Probably not. What 'major copy-protected elements of the original' does that contain?
I suppose if it were a dialog heavy adventure game, and you reproduced the entire dialog transcript of your playthrough then at that point yes, it would be derivative.
Bottom line, is if you are looking to create an original work, without risk of it being derivative to commercialize it, don't create it entirely within someone elses copy-protected "universe" or sample someone elses copy protected universe in a recognizable way without permission up front. Its not rocket science.
And creating a gameplay video does not create a derivative work of the game.
Look up what a derivative work is. Then come back.
Recording just the audio of you playing the game and releasing that as a song is a derivative work. Do you really think adding the video somehow makes it less a derivative work?
Even just SAMPLING the audio from the game and including it in an otherwise original new rap song technically requires getting the rights.
Can you play it? No
Irrelevant.
Reading a book requires no special skill (beyond the ability to read).
Says someone who has no appreciation for a good audiobook. A good 'reader' provides lots of value add.
Also, listening to an audiobook may remove the reason for somebody to purchase/read a book, but watching a game "walkthrough" doesn't remove the incentive to purchase the game (unless it sucks).
That really makes no difference to copyright law. But even if it did, I think most people watching game walkthroughs already have the game; so they aren't motivated to buy it anyway.
If I record a video of myself and buddies playing a game of Monopoly
And you are publishing it online for ad revenue? Do you not live in the real world? The one where TV shows have fake brands for everything, because they know they don't have the rights to use real brands copyrights and trademarks.
Of course you can't do that. If you made a TV show or movie, and wanted to have a scene with your characters playing monopoly (actual monopoly, rather than just a generic board game that's similar to monopoly) then you know you damned well need to clear that with Hasbro. Either pay them, or get them to pay you if you can convince them its worthwhile product placement... but under no circumstances can you just use the monopoly trademarks without permission.
What makes you think loading a video to youtube to collect ad revenue is somehow different?
Every time you use a loop, call a function or declare a variable etc., the compiler replaces that with its own copyrighted machine code that you did not write.
Your executable is a patchwork of copyrighted code from the compiler.
Its not "replaced" its transformed. The output is a derivative work of the input source code, transformed by an algorithm. The algorithm is not 'creative', and retains no copyright over the output.
Now, having said that I suppose some dirtbag compiler maker could require you to sign an license agreement that assigns them (some) copyright over the output, but that would be due to your license agreement, not due to copyright law.
Apparently, yes. From TFA:
Yeah, I'm not sure what legal theory Nintendo would be using there. But it sounded to me more like simple over-reaching and over-zealousness with the 'claims' than there being any actual legal argument to support them; especially as the copyright claims you referred to in your quote were being made by INDmusic and TuneCore rather than Nintendo itself.
A user who is too scared to be in developer mode is acknowledging they don't have sufficient knowledge to judge extensions.
But their IT manager at work does; and he shouldn't have to put everyone's chrome into developer mode just to install a given company improved extension.
One can delegate making informed judgement to someone else, without having that someone else automatically be google.
So, should Adobe get a cut of the profit you made from selling your photo just because you used Photoshop to create it?
Editing a photo with photoshop creates a derivative work of the original photo, not a derivative work of photoshop.
Should MS get a cut because your app is generated (derived) by the Visual Studio compiler/linker?
Look up what derivative works are in the context of copyright law. You clearly have no idea.
According to their copyright page, Nintendo does not own the copyright to these games, so how can they demand ad-revenue?
Are they demanding ad revenue from non-Nintendo (ie 3rd party) games? That would require are more interesting legal theory if true.
At any rate, going after customers who are publicly advertising your product without charge to an audience likely to buy it might be one of the stupidest business strategies I've heard of.
An audience likely to buy it? Or an audience that already bought it? Seriously. How many people watche game playthroughs of games they don't own. I don't even watch them for most games unless I've already more or less mastered it, and just want to fine tune some skill or other, or maybe see just how to get some secret/easter egg thing.
I'd say the majority of people watching game videos have already got the game. Especially for Nintendo games.
But hell, even 'esports' -- I'd say the VAST majority either already have the game or are only interested in watching other people play it... the number that are sitting there 'thinking of buying it' is nearly zero.
Maybe they aren't stupid after all, and the ad revenue they are taking far exceeds the extra sales they'd get by not taking some of the ad revenue.
They trying to stop the malware stuff for 90% of users.
There are plenty of actual solutions for that.
a) Block the extensions that don't come through the app store, but let the user enable them one by one -- without scary 'developer mode' (and opening up the floodgates)
b) Reputation systems -- allow 'reputable' extensions; revert to a) above for the rest. Google and the AV vendors don't want to get their hands dirty classifying useless shit nobody wants as the useless shit nobody wants, fine let the 'community' handle the reputation.
And for anyone who really wants it, they can manually enable it.
output of a game being played != a copy of the game.
Its clearly a derivative work; and when published to the internet with ad revenue attched to it, then it becomes a commercial 'for profit' derivative work.
Its a no-brainer that Nintendo has all kinds of rights over not only the gameplay videos but any profits from them.
It's the same as someone buying a book, and then publishing ad-supported audio of them reading it.
Nintendo allowing the gameplay videos and sharing the ad revenue to the creators of the videos really is about as reasonable an outcome as it gets.
To be completely honest, its more lenient by far than the law requires.
So what is this system where markets are not regulated called, then?
The system we have? Capitalism. Its just far from the ideal. So when you say "Isn't capitalism working precisely as it should", the answer is "No", its working the way it works when conditions are not ideal.
it is not a fault of the system, but the law of supply and demand working against Stross.
It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with overall supply and demand for Stross's work. Neither was objectively changed. The supply is the same. And the demand? The same number of customers should want same number of books at the same price as before. They just have to visit a different online store to get them.
So why does the demand for Stross novels not get met by the supply of Stross novels via the new channels? Something isn't right.
The suggestion that Amazon can maintain its dictatorial monopoly is ridiculous and there are an endless list of examples countering it in economical history.
Agreed, but waiting on the slow burn of history to sort the market out rarely works out for the little guys.They are trapped in the present. And they'll be bankrupt before the market corrects itself.
This doesn't happen in an "ideal capitalism". This is not
"precisely how its supposed to work"; This is how it DOES work in the real world though, because the real world is far from an ideal capitalism.
Is this not just precise how capitalism is supposed to work?
Actually no. Not even close. This is how its supposed to work: the Charlie Strosses would just sell through different channels. The customers would buy through the other channels. Amazon would miss the income, and would pay what it took to get the novels (and customers) back.
But that requires a competitive marketplace with multiple competing channels. If amazon owns enough of the market, then the Charlie Strosses can't stay solvent just selling through other channels. This gives amazon more power to DICTATE pricing than a functioning market would normally allow.
expect the unexpected unintended side effects.
I'm always glad to see new developments in materials science, but one of the potential issues that jumped out at me when I see them looking at plant based materials for cars is whether it will be tasty.
Not that I envision a horde of Panda's attacking our new bamboo cars, but insects and rodents might well. There was a change made to the plastic sheath in automotive wiring some years ago to use a soy based coating, for example, and it turns out mice liked to eat it; dramatically increasing rodent damage to vehicle wiring -- I seem to recall an article where at least one manufacturer combated the issue by adding 'spices' to the coating to make it less appetizing.
No idea if that's a concern with bamboo; but its something to consider; along with any number of other things maybe nobody has thought about. Only way to find out is to try, right :)
so desperate for a new cold war
Wot are you on about? A "new" cold war? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
136k isn't an unreasonable mileage for a car.
Its not unreasonable at all over the life of a car, but 136,000 miles to BREAK EVEN on going with electric IS on the crazy high side.
The type of person who buys a brand new car, isn't likely still the same owner at 130,000 miles. So odds are he won't ever break even unless he can resell the car at 3 or 5 years for quite a bit more than the gasoline version.
And that's not a gimme, because by now the batteries are possibly out of warranty and their end of life is within sight. If they'll need to be replaced at 100k and the care has 60k on it now that's going to be a major factor. Even if they'll go to 150k, and the car is at 60k... if I plan to drive it for 3 years and put 15-20k on it annually, when I turn around to sell it its probably going to have negative resale value.
I'm not sure what point you're getting at, but you're going to have to provide me at least some scraps of data if you're trying to make the case that American drones have often bombed weddings where everyone seems to be completely innocent except for one guy who is maybe or maybe not a terrorist. That's the situation we're discussing.
Why is ~that~ the situation we're discussing?
Because if even a handful of guests are innocent what we're doing is completely indefensible to me, and even if you wanted to justify it somehow, its still going to be counterproductive because its going to manufacture new "terrorists" out of the survivors and extended family's of the rest of the wedding guests.
However, I'm 99.999% certain that none of them were terrorists or supporting terrorists.
And if you and your wife lived in Pakistan, and had Pakistani friends and families? You'd still be 99.999% sure that someone somewhere in one of the families wasn't a -suspect- by the United States of terrorism?
And that's you having the wedding; imagine you are someone else now invited to one as a guest, where you may not even know the bride or groom or either if you are +1 to someone who does...
Probably not even a few percent
A few percent is a HUGE number in this context.
For example, that means if you select an executed prisoner at random, the odds he was innocent is several times HIGHER than the odds he shares your birthday. (0.027%) Its HIGHER than the odds he shares your 'birth-week'. (1.9%)
A recent peer reviewed study puts the innocence rate at LEAST 4% as a conservative. If we executed one inmate a week (which is fairly close to actuality), we'd kill at least 2 innocents every year on average, and almost surely more.
Surely that's far too high for you to swallow as acceptable? It is for me.
Maybe they didn't. A not-insignificant number of death row inmates aren't even guilty.
And the point about wealth and having a better lawyer is quite valid too.
Personally, I'm not against the idea of the death penalty, but I can't support it in practice knowing that we kill the innocent sometimes along with the guilty.
Which is why they can just use 1 Windows PC.
Except I need a PC in my office; and I still want to play games in the living room. I still need a total of 2 devices; but I don't want to have to involve both of them to play a game if I can avoid it.
You really think people are going to pay hundreds of dollars for a steambox just to stream content from their PC to their TV? This concept is just a value-add,
Agreed.
Valve needs to make the steambox a compelling standalone product for people to buy it.
Agreed.
That's what people said about Ouya too. Just because it exists doesn't mean people are going to use it.
That's worlds apart.
The ouya is a new product, starting from near 0.
The steambox will already as-in right now today before its even been properly released run a substantial subset of Steam's library directly. And you can get access to the rest via streaming. So any gamer who has a 100+ games and a windows gaming PC can buy a steambox and play a chunk of them directly on it, and can stream the rest from his pc.
The PC gamer considering a steambox will ask which of my games can I use it with, and the answer will be "all of them".
That is definitely going to help get its foot in the door. Its a reasonably compelling platform already, and its not even released.
The ONLY thing it can do is increase the viability of linux as a direct target for game development.* The ONLY question is how well will it sell. If it sells a lot, then its a no brainer for game devs to target it.
And I think it has the potential to sell a lot, because unlike say Ouya or other alternatives it is just a regular PC under the hood, and it will run ones entire steam library (one way or another).
* on two fronts -- first by simply expanding the number of installed linux gaming pcs in the world; secondly by giving game developers a distro to target and some hardware profiles to provide official support for.
By the same token nobody WANTS to run Windows or Linux or OS X, they are merely a means to an end which - in this case - is to play games.
Missing the point. Nobody wants 2 devices to do the job of one.
So just install Windows on your steambox and you have can eliminate the game server completely AND get the full game library.
Those that want to go that route will just buy / build windows PCs.
Meanwhile, the fact that they ship with linux and will have valves marketing/sales muscle behind them mean that there will likely be a huge pile of installed Linux boxes in the nearish future.
Its silly to pretend that won't entice some development for the platofrm.
You don't know where Valve is heading with their proprietary Steam platform either.
Of course I don't. I am not even a huge fan of steam. I prefer to buy from GoG and HumbleBundle for the real DRM free options available (and I get most of my steam keys by that route vs directly from steam).
But your right, its certainly possible that Steam will shoot itself in the foot and go off the rails. But if it does the cool thing about both linux and windows (at least so far) is that other competing stores can and do show up and you can use your hardware with them. If steam implodes, so what?
But just having steam setting up its little steambox project waiting in the wings for Microsoft to shoot ITSELF in the foot may even be the pressure microsoft needs to avoid going completley off the rails itself. The real threat gamers actually theoretically could just en masse migrate off the Windows platform to "linux/valve" -- that might well be enough to keep Microsoft's worst ideas in check; and maybe even motivate them to go a bit out of their originally planned way to make sure Windows remains the best platform for games.
Ever tried running MS Office apps without a mouse?
Turns out being adept with keyboard shortcuts plus the touchscreen/ribbon actually works quite well.
I wouldn't want to go without a mouse and use a touchscreen on the the 24" screen on my desk. But a tablet on my lap on the couch... works a treat.
Ever tried connecting a Surface Pro to your company's Active Directory and implementing GPO?
Its exactly the same as the new win 8.1 dell optiplexes scattered around the company. EXACTLY THE SAME. It works fine.
Ever tried running your favourite MS software (I mean software developed using older versions of Visual Studio) on Windows 8+ versions?
That's why we have them. Because iPad doesn't run them at all, and nearly everything we need runs fine on them. We do have a few XP laptops kicking around for hardware interface stuff that just won't run on anything newer than XP but that's a separate issue, and nothing to do with Windows 8 or Surface Pro, as they won't working on Vista onwards. So a laptop with windows 7 pro isn't going to be any better.
A $300 desktop does it very well, and a $500 laptop does it better, and is portable besides.
And a surface pro 3 is just a smaller more expensive laptop, that is even more portable, and has a better battery life.
A tablet that doesn't win Windows 7 or XP is useless for business users.
No. Windows 8 is far better than Windows 7 is on a touch device. "8.1 update 1" is thoroughly decent and I don't personally really prefer 7 to it at this point; and the stuff I've seen with the "start menu" planned this year will pretty much end virtually all my complaints about it.
Where did 52 come from?? There's no 52 in the problem anywhere! And why are we adding 100?
Really?
Original question:
321 - 148 = ??
So another way of asking question is, what do we need to add to 148 to get to 321 ?
We add 52 to 148 to get to 200, then its trivial to add 121 or 100+21 to get to 321. The 52 was trivial, because its the complement of 100. Or if you were having trouble, you 2 to get to 150, and then 50 to get to 200. (2+50 = 52)
I look at 321-148, and I just walk my way from 148 to 321:
In longest possible form: // add 2 to get to 150 // add 50 to get to 200 // add 100 to get to 300 // add 20 to get to 320 // add 1 to get to 321
148 + 2 = 150,
150 + 50 = 200
200 + 100 = 300
300 + 20 = 320
320+ 1 = 321
2+ 50 + 100 +20 + 1 = 173 // take all the bits i needed to add to span from 148 to 321 and add them to get the total. That toal is the difference.
But I'm an adult so I don't need "longest possible form":
I just do:
148 + 52 = 200
200 + 121 = 321
That's where the 52 comes from by the way. Its the complement of 48. Anyone should be able to do that without even thinking about it.
And then
52 + 121 = 173
And for nearly all subtractions its the same 3 steps:
step 1 what do i need to get the nearest round number
step 2 what do i need to get from that to the total
1271 - 1196
nearest suitable round number to 1196 = 1200, so I need 4,
1200 to 1271, is 71; 71 + 4 = 75
Doing this demonstrates lot more ability to actually THINK (look for easy numbers to work with decompose the actual numbers to them, and then reassemble them.
My daughter spent a lot of her math time making estimates, and decomposing numbers, thereby learning to how to select 'good numbers' for rounding such that its easy to calculate offsets from them. This ground work prepared her well for the technique and has an additional benefit... she has a much better sense of what the correct answer should look like. And she can even check her work to arbitrary precision by simply doing a partial process and discarding the smaller bits along way. Or even doing it iteratively first to an estimated result, and then compensate it to get to the actual.
Here's an example:
e.g. 75154 - 45332 becomes
75000 - 45000 = 30000 easy estimate; could call it done for most purposes. Oh? we need more? Ok... a closer answer is 100 more than that and 300 less... or 29800
closer still would be to add 50 and subtract 30 or 29820, add 4 subtract 2 = 29822
And its just an application of:
75154 - 45332 =
75000 + 100 + 50 + 4 - (45000 + 300 + 30 + 2) =
75000 + 100 + 50 + 4 - 45000 - 300 - 30 - 2 =
75000 - 45000 + 100 - 300 + 50 - 30 + 4 - 2 =
Which can be explained to them when they start working on algebra and simplifying equations, term re-ording, and so on, and they ALREADY understand it, because its how they already do arithmetic.
The rote techniques of addition and subtraction with borrows and carries ARE the parlor tricks.
Arguing that the mindless rote work of the traditional method is in anyway going to lead to students with a better understanding of math is ridiculous on its face.
if you're going to stream games from your gaming PC then the client doesn't have to be powerful enough to run those games so you spend your money on one decent game server and cheap low-end client(s).
Except nobody really WANTS to use a 'game server'; its merely a means to an end. That being able to play windows games on linux/steamboxes.
The target market will definitely prefer direct support for linux/steamboxes over having to use a gaming server.
However, the capability of using windows as a game server enables linux/steambox to get the installed base it needs to become a viable directly supported platform.
Meanwhile we don't really know where microsoft is heading. Subscription based OS? App-store-lockin unless you buy "Ultimate with developer keys and MSDN subscription"? In OS advertising? If a viable alternative gaming platform existed and was widely deployed there might be a lot of gamers more than willing to upgrade their steambox video card to play a new game than upgrade their windows gaming server.
Your example is extreme, but in the vast majority of cases it is clear to everyone (except perhaps small children) that these are bad dudes and it should just be common sense not to hang around them or do business with them. I have little sympathy for them, just as I would people who hang around organized criminals and get caught in the crossfire.
Let me put it simply... there were lots of people at my own wedding that I didn't know; and several who I'd never met before. One of my own groomsmen brought a +1 he met less than 1 weeks prior. And half the people in my wifes extended family I barely knew, nevermind THEIR +1s. And I had a fairly small wedding. ~40-50 people.