Some games do allow it, the Assassin's Creed series and Infamous both let you do it if you want to. In the latter, one of the paths you take encourages that sort of bad behavior.
Personally, I think that cleaning up and sanitizing war games is the last thing we need. If people want that, then they should be playing against the Strog or various aliens, considering how much glorification there is of war in the popular media, you're not going to damage anybody emotionally by depicting things with a tad bit of accuracy.
At the end of the day, they're video games, no matter how realistic, they're not going to accurately portray a real combat situation.
Writing one song is unlikely to support a person for even a modest lifestyle. You'd have to sell at least 5 million copies of it even if you're assuming that the person is getting to keep half the money. Which rarely if ever happens.
Doesn't matter much whether it's a 14 year term or a 1400 year term, it's not going to pay for anything more than a paupers life style.
What's worse is that it also reduces the likelihood of the artist making any money at all off it as you're not going to be making money from it immediately, unless you've already got some sort of deal.
They're not invariably money based, one of the musicians from Abba was thrilled to see the copyright term extended so that their music wouldn't be used in commercials. Lately there have been a few flaps over politicians appropriating music for their campaigns over the opposition of the musicians that wrote and or made the music famous.
And while it might be most works, the individuals we're wanting to encourage are taking the view that the music is going to be out there for a lot longer than just 14 years. Telling them to maximize the profit over 14 years because after that you're not going to get paid, doesn't strike me as the best way of encouraging innovation.
It's got nothing to do with the space race. NASA is one of the main agencies tracking climate change and it's a bit of an odd coincidence that the same party that denies climate change is the same party that seems to feel that NASA is no longer needed.
I had the same problem the one time I bought from the Kindle store, that was before I got my Nook, but it sucks being stuck either cracking a book that one has paid for or having to buy it again for use on a different device.
My point there was that there's no reason for.mobi to exist at all other than Amazon wanting to prevent people from using their books on other ereaders.
Backblaze is OK, but Crashplan is a better solution. Crashplan allows you to back up locally for free, which is what the OP is asking about, or for a low monthly price back up online as well.
I'm not sure who currently holds the rights, but for years Michael Jackson owned most of the Beatles catalog. At this point, I'm not sure who owns them at this point.
Art is an investment. You typically do the work up front for free, and then you hope to make the money back selling copies for years to come. The problem here is that it's not the artists that own the rights, it's the labels, and the labels don't do jack shit to earn their money in most cases, or at least not in proportion to the amount they invest. It's not uncommon for them to place all the risk on the group and then pocket nearly all the proceeds of the album sales.
Going much beyond 50 years is a travesty. There is some incentive to be had from 50 years, many artists hope to be able to provide for their family for a period after their death, and extending copyright doesn't guarantee income.
Which explains why everybody else adopted epubs? Last time I checked, epub came in both DRM and DRM-free flavors.
The reality is that ebook rentals have been around for some time, although mostly in the form of borrowing from libraries. The main reason this is news is that it's Amazon and they've decided to charge for the privilege.
Which works fine as long as you don't mind committing a felony or can find them without DRM. Which is sort of the problem. They have apparently folded somewhat on the issue of other retailers selling Kindle compatible books, but the selection is still substantially less than if they'd just go along with the industry standard.
And making it Kindle only is going to underline why people shouldn't be buying Kindles in the first place. Not that I'd expect it to make much difference, people who care about that probably bought a Nook or something else that can read epubs.
At least in theory, Cisco products being produced in China are supposed to be monitored by Cisco to make sure that they conform to whatever specs Cisco is paying for. Whereas if they're just counterfeit products, there's no way that Cisco could catch on to whatever trojans might be installed.
Technically what happened was that Vista was overly ambitious and then they cut features to catch up, but even with cutting features, there was still not really enough time so they rushed what they had out the door.
Which works well until some program you want to use requires functionality which requires a newer version of Windows. For the most part upgrading Linux installs is a lot less of a headache than doing it with Windows, that is of course assuming you chose a reasonable distro and not that Canonical Ubuntu crap that doesn't understand the meaning of stable release.
That's basically because they had no choice. Vista wasn't released until 2006 which was a full five years after XP was released. It was a tremendous mistake for them to take that long, definitely not normal and definitely not something that MS is likely to repeat any time soon. Normally for MS, you're looking at major releases about every 2 to 3 years based on my cursory glance at the release dates.
Which ultimately is too quick for any legitimate reason these days, in the past it made sense as there was a lot more going on in the OS in terms of performance and hardware upgrades to justify it, but these days most of what's happening is in the userland, not anything which reasonably necessitates an upgraded OS.
It's probably meant for the American market. Around here I'd kill to have the option available. Seriously, the fastest connection available around here is either Comcast and capped, or century link and not capped but maxes out at 5mbps down and 512kbps up. AFAICT they're not planning on upgrading capacity any time soon either. And I pay a third of what you'd be paying for a gigabit connection.
I'm presently waiting for a large number of large files to upload, it's taking me months because my ISP is only capable of providing 512kbps up and that's before the various other uses and overhead. The real rate is significantly lower than that.
Now, if I was getting 10mbps up, then they'd have a point, but at this point much of the US is on a connection that's slower than mine is. But as it is, there are plenty of currently available applications which are being stifled because of low bandwidth, bandwidth caps and/or poor latency.
Theoretically it's supposed to be balanced by fair use and limited period of protection. In practice it's gotten really out of hand over the last hundred years or so and mostly serves to stifle creation of new cultural items.
They also used to say that you were in the clear if you deleted the file with in 24 hours. AFAIK that was never based on any statute or legal precedence, just a way of looking like it was something other than piracy.
At the end of the day, you're much better off just dumping the carts yourself, the equipment these days is often times not hard to get and fairly inexpensive, less than some of the harder to get carts.
It's ridiculous like that in many parts of the world. In the US, it's legal to back up your media, however you're not allowed to break the DRM in order to do it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how one can back up something that they're not allowed to make spare copies of.
That's not true. Being soldered onto a proprietary board is not the same thing as copy control, unless you've got some actual case law to base that assertion on. The matter hasn't been litigated and the main reason why the case was settled the way it was back then, was because the equipment necessary to use the carts was still relatively inexpensive and easily obtainable. Getting a console that properly plays some of those old games is getting harder and harder and at this point it's easier to use 3rd party gear.
As for arcade games, that's never been litigated AFAIK, mainly because they've been expensive and hard to get ones hands on.
Indeed, that's what I do. The trick is getting an appropriate device for dumping the ROMs. I personally use the www.retrode.org, but there are other devices on the market. The great thing is that one doesn't need to worry about being busted, as it's completely legal. Plus, they don't have any way of knowing that one is dumping carts to disk.
Additionally a film or TV show is filmed with that aspect ratio in mind. Which is why films that were shot in 16:9 look like crap when displayed in 4:3 without letter boxing and vice versa. Ultimately, I'd guess that even if they did have the ability to show more to the frame that there'd be times when there was something distracting going on off camera or where it screws up the composition.
Which would be interesting, but would greatly diminish the movie.
Why is that a surprise? Digital video, while available, was very expensive at the time. It's not like these days where the main cost is storage and back up. Plus, at that time, I'm not really sure that it was particularly well suited to a series like Star Trek which uses a lot of special effects added after the fact.
Yes and no, there's a maximum resolution that you can scan at before you start wasting pixels. I've found that scanning at about double that and then converting the image to the proper size in software tends to keep grain and noise down. But, with the equipment they used, I'd be surprised if they hadn't taken multi samples of each pixel on each frame to eliminate noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Some games do allow it, the Assassin's Creed series and Infamous both let you do it if you want to. In the latter, one of the paths you take encourages that sort of bad behavior.
Personally, I think that cleaning up and sanitizing war games is the last thing we need. If people want that, then they should be playing against the Strog or various aliens, considering how much glorification there is of war in the popular media, you're not going to damage anybody emotionally by depicting things with a tad bit of accuracy.
At the end of the day, they're video games, no matter how realistic, they're not going to accurately portray a real combat situation.
Writing one song is unlikely to support a person for even a modest lifestyle. You'd have to sell at least 5 million copies of it even if you're assuming that the person is getting to keep half the money. Which rarely if ever happens.
Doesn't matter much whether it's a 14 year term or a 1400 year term, it's not going to pay for anything more than a paupers life style.
What's worse is that it also reduces the likelihood of the artist making any money at all off it as you're not going to be making money from it immediately, unless you've already got some sort of deal.
They're not invariably money based, one of the musicians from Abba was thrilled to see the copyright term extended so that their music wouldn't be used in commercials. Lately there have been a few flaps over politicians appropriating music for their campaigns over the opposition of the musicians that wrote and or made the music famous.
And while it might be most works, the individuals we're wanting to encourage are taking the view that the music is going to be out there for a lot longer than just 14 years. Telling them to maximize the profit over 14 years because after that you're not going to get paid, doesn't strike me as the best way of encouraging innovation.
It's got nothing to do with the space race. NASA is one of the main agencies tracking climate change and it's a bit of an odd coincidence that the same party that denies climate change is the same party that seems to feel that NASA is no longer needed.
I had the same problem the one time I bought from the Kindle store, that was before I got my Nook, but it sucks being stuck either cracking a book that one has paid for or having to buy it again for use on a different device.
My point there was that there's no reason for .mobi to exist at all other than Amazon wanting to prevent people from using their books on other ereaders.
Backblaze is OK, but Crashplan is a better solution. Crashplan allows you to back up locally for free, which is what the OP is asking about, or for a low monthly price back up online as well.
I'm not sure who currently holds the rights, but for years Michael Jackson owned most of the Beatles catalog. At this point, I'm not sure who owns them at this point.
Art is an investment. You typically do the work up front for free, and then you hope to make the money back selling copies for years to come. The problem here is that it's not the artists that own the rights, it's the labels, and the labels don't do jack shit to earn their money in most cases, or at least not in proportion to the amount they invest. It's not uncommon for them to place all the risk on the group and then pocket nearly all the proceeds of the album sales.
Going much beyond 50 years is a travesty. There is some incentive to be had from 50 years, many artists hope to be able to provide for their family for a period after their death, and extending copyright doesn't guarantee income.
Which explains why everybody else adopted epubs? Last time I checked, epub came in both DRM and DRM-free flavors.
The reality is that ebook rentals have been around for some time, although mostly in the form of borrowing from libraries. The main reason this is news is that it's Amazon and they've decided to charge for the privilege.
Which works fine as long as you don't mind committing a felony or can find them without DRM. Which is sort of the problem. They have apparently folded somewhat on the issue of other retailers selling Kindle compatible books, but the selection is still substantially less than if they'd just go along with the industry standard.
And making it Kindle only is going to underline why people shouldn't be buying Kindles in the first place. Not that I'd expect it to make much difference, people who care about that probably bought a Nook or something else that can read epubs.
At least in theory, Cisco products being produced in China are supposed to be monitored by Cisco to make sure that they conform to whatever specs Cisco is paying for. Whereas if they're just counterfeit products, there's no way that Cisco could catch on to whatever trojans might be installed.
Technically what happened was that Vista was overly ambitious and then they cut features to catch up, but even with cutting features, there was still not really enough time so they rushed what they had out the door.
Which works well until some program you want to use requires functionality which requires a newer version of Windows. For the most part upgrading Linux installs is a lot less of a headache than doing it with Windows, that is of course assuming you chose a reasonable distro and not that Canonical Ubuntu crap that doesn't understand the meaning of stable release.
That's basically because they had no choice. Vista wasn't released until 2006 which was a full five years after XP was released. It was a tremendous mistake for them to take that long, definitely not normal and definitely not something that MS is likely to repeat any time soon. Normally for MS, you're looking at major releases about every 2 to 3 years based on my cursory glance at the release dates.
Which ultimately is too quick for any legitimate reason these days, in the past it made sense as there was a lot more going on in the OS in terms of performance and hardware upgrades to justify it, but these days most of what's happening is in the userland, not anything which reasonably necessitates an upgraded OS.
It's probably meant for the American market. Around here I'd kill to have the option available. Seriously, the fastest connection available around here is either Comcast and capped, or century link and not capped but maxes out at 5mbps down and 512kbps up. AFAICT they're not planning on upgrading capacity any time soon either. And I pay a third of what you'd be paying for a gigabit connection.
I'm presently waiting for a large number of large files to upload, it's taking me months because my ISP is only capable of providing 512kbps up and that's before the various other uses and overhead. The real rate is significantly lower than that.
Now, if I was getting 10mbps up, then they'd have a point, but at this point much of the US is on a connection that's slower than mine is. But as it is, there are plenty of currently available applications which are being stifled because of low bandwidth, bandwidth caps and/or poor latency.
Theoretically it's supposed to be balanced by fair use and limited period of protection. In practice it's gotten really out of hand over the last hundred years or so and mostly serves to stifle creation of new cultural items.
They also used to say that you were in the clear if you deleted the file with in 24 hours. AFAIK that was never based on any statute or legal precedence, just a way of looking like it was something other than piracy.
At the end of the day, you're much better off just dumping the carts yourself, the equipment these days is often times not hard to get and fairly inexpensive, less than some of the harder to get carts.
It's ridiculous like that in many parts of the world. In the US, it's legal to back up your media, however you're not allowed to break the DRM in order to do it. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how one can back up something that they're not allowed to make spare copies of.
That's not true. Being soldered onto a proprietary board is not the same thing as copy control, unless you've got some actual case law to base that assertion on. The matter hasn't been litigated and the main reason why the case was settled the way it was back then, was because the equipment necessary to use the carts was still relatively inexpensive and easily obtainable. Getting a console that properly plays some of those old games is getting harder and harder and at this point it's easier to use 3rd party gear.
As for arcade games, that's never been litigated AFAIK, mainly because they've been expensive and hard to get ones hands on.
Indeed, that's what I do. The trick is getting an appropriate device for dumping the ROMs. I personally use the www.retrode.org, but there are other devices on the market. The great thing is that one doesn't need to worry about being busted, as it's completely legal. Plus, they don't have any way of knowing that one is dumping carts to disk.
Additionally a film or TV show is filmed with that aspect ratio in mind. Which is why films that were shot in 16:9 look like crap when displayed in 4:3 without letter boxing and vice versa. Ultimately, I'd guess that even if they did have the ability to show more to the frame that there'd be times when there was something distracting going on off camera or where it screws up the composition.
Which would be interesting, but would greatly diminish the movie.
Why is that a surprise? Digital video, while available, was very expensive at the time. It's not like these days where the main cost is storage and back up. Plus, at that time, I'm not really sure that it was particularly well suited to a series like Star Trek which uses a lot of special effects added after the fact.
Yes and no, there's a maximum resolution that you can scan at before you start wasting pixels. I've found that scanning at about double that and then converting the image to the proper size in software tends to keep grain and noise down. But, with the equipment they used, I'd be surprised if they hadn't taken multi samples of each pixel on each frame to eliminate noise.