That's not likely, as somebody posted somewhere else, this is a really good time for Nintendo and the rest to double down on R&D so that coming out of the recession when wallets open up they've got a new set of hardware to sell. Especially since they should be doing that anyways.
I got my PS3 primarily for blurays, I also play a few games on it, but it was mostly about blu ray. In retrospect I don't think I would've bothered because by the time the format wars finished the ability to stream more or less replaced my interest in owning.
I finish more games now than I used to. A large part of that is that the games I'm playing tend to have a more realistic learning curve. Also typically if I'm getting frustrated playing it usually gives me something else to do in the mean time. Old school FPS games like Doom and Quake were a real bitch if you couldn't handle a particular part of a level and lacked the determination to load time after time after time for however many tries it took. Granted that's not much of an issue for a hardcore gamer, but for those that aren't so dedicated it can kill the chance at finishing a game.
Also, bugs that eat saves definitely kill any interest I have in finishing a game.
In the long run, that's the way I imagine things going. A large part of the problem right now is that it really needs an accelerator, but at this point I don't know of any companies that make them. But in the long run, most of the complaints I have about graphics would be solved with a move to ray tracing. It's surprisingly jarring to have shadows misbehave and yet it's also very difficult to get right.
I don't know about that. PC game graphics for some genres are still increasing dramatically. I think a part of the problem is that you can't typically upgrade a console in ways which would make this happen. With PC games you typically have the luxury of throwing in a couple detail settings above what typical computers can handle to give a bit more life and to satisfy the people willing to spend huge sums of money on their rigs. That typically doesn't happen with consoles for obvious reasons.
A $100 video card upgrade can do wonders for performance and the experience, but with consoles you're largely stuck buying the next generation. And good luck if they don't make one. I'm shocked at how bad the graphics on my PS3 games look compared to some of the better PC games. Sure the PS3 games like FO:NV don't exactly look bad, but they're definitely not as good too look at as higher quality PC versions.
Which admittedly isn't that big of a deal, I tend to get sucked into a game far enough that I don't spend much time noticing that, but still.
Graphics are good enough, I would prefer they spent the extra resources on better writing and designing an aesthetic to wrap the whole game in. Or perhaps even QA, when a console game can't be released without significant bugs, you know that there's serious issues.
Sure we do. I have a right to privacy when at home or in places where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because somebody is a celebrity does not mean that suddenly they have no privacy rights. It just means that they don't get to be anonymous in a crowd any more.
I realize that this is an unpopular position, but the reality is that whom a particular celebrity is sleeping with is hardly any of our business. Even if he or she is married.
Yes, but it's still not any business of the public what celebrities do on their own time. Now if they run for congress, particularly on a family values ticket, then it might be our business. As it is it isn't any more our business than if the neighbor down the street is doing it.
To be honest, that was never any business of the public at large. It's just that in the UK they can go to the courts and get an injunction. Whereas in the US there's little to nothing that can be done to keep the press out of the private lives of celebrities. To an extent that's natural, but if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.
Nice trolling. You do realize that even before MAC that security was more involved than that, right? Perhaps you might want to do some research before you post that kind of BS here. Setuid is necessary because some applications aren't properly programmed.
I can't help but notice that you're ignoring the fact that MAC came out before Windows got any sort of granular permissions and that up until Vista came out in 2006 that Windows effectively didn't have any ability to set permissions on the machines average users were using.
Um, isn't that the direction Apple has been going lately? First they take the buttons, then they take most of the ability to install apps, all they need to do is require a password to turn the thing on and not give it out for the vision to be complete.
OK, so because we've always done it that way, it must be a reasonable way. Nice appeal to tradition. Perhaps we should admit that it's unreasonable to expect that students taking an intro course to have experience. Call me naive, but I always assumed that introductory courses were intended for those without experience to gain some before getting into the more difficult coursework.
There's a difference between somebody flunking out of a potential major in a computer related area because they don't know how to work a computer and flunking out because they haven't been adequately prepared by the intro course.
Hardly. When was the last time you used Windows? With Windows Vista/7 As long as your wifi/ethernet card installs, Windows Update takes care of most of the drivers. Anything else can be found on the mfgr website.
That's been the case for quite a while. Right now it's not much of a problem, but I'm guessing that as Win 7 gets older that it's going to be more and more common for you to need a second driver disk to get the drivers. XP doesn't have much trouble finding drivers at present, provided you've got the ones for your network card.
But, if you've got drivers for the network card there's absolutely no reason why you can't download the correct drivers yourself.
Why would he need that? By that logic architects would need permission from the Romans whenever they chose to include Roman arches in their buildings. A lot of architects would be liable for infringement around here if that were true.
Historically the way that was handled was by art patronage. The artists would be working in a studio most days the way that other people would and the patron would pay for their time. Which would allow a large amount of art to be produced. The main problem with it was that it tended to stifle creativity as one still had to worry about making something that the patron liked.
Locally, the city has paid for public art that then belongs to the city and is available for whatever uses people have for the works. There are some practical limitations like you can't take the statues, but it's definitely one way of handling the problem.
Mike Tyson apparently doesn't own the rights to the original. It was apparently agreed to that the tattoo artist would own the copyright to the tattoo. Which seems odd to me, but that was apparently what they agreed to.
Except that this isn't parody by any reasonable definition. Which is going to be a real problem. I haven't seen the film, but merely slapping an identical looking design onto a character, even if the character is a parody, is not sufficient to extend fair use to that. Especially since there's no reason why the design needs to be that similar to the original.
If it's based that heavily on the original then it's likely to be considered a derivative work. And since there is apparently no creativity involved with recreating the tattoo for the movie it should be considered a derivative work.
As such, there definitely is going to be something of significance to this case if Warner Brothers manages to win. Or even if they don't, this would likely still have some pretty astonishing effects on the tattoo industry.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not likely, as somebody posted somewhere else, this is a really good time for Nintendo and the rest to double down on R&D so that coming out of the recession when wallets open up they've got a new set of hardware to sell. Especially since they should be doing that anyways.
I got my PS3 primarily for blurays, I also play a few games on it, but it was mostly about blu ray. In retrospect I don't think I would've bothered because by the time the format wars finished the ability to stream more or less replaced my interest in owning.
I finish more games now than I used to. A large part of that is that the games I'm playing tend to have a more realistic learning curve. Also typically if I'm getting frustrated playing it usually gives me something else to do in the mean time. Old school FPS games like Doom and Quake were a real bitch if you couldn't handle a particular part of a level and lacked the determination to load time after time after time for however many tries it took. Granted that's not much of an issue for a hardcore gamer, but for those that aren't so dedicated it can kill the chance at finishing a game.
Also, bugs that eat saves definitely kill any interest I have in finishing a game.
In the long run, that's the way I imagine things going. A large part of the problem right now is that it really needs an accelerator, but at this point I don't know of any companies that make them. But in the long run, most of the complaints I have about graphics would be solved with a move to ray tracing. It's surprisingly jarring to have shadows misbehave and yet it's also very difficult to get right.
I don't know about that. PC game graphics for some genres are still increasing dramatically. I think a part of the problem is that you can't typically upgrade a console in ways which would make this happen. With PC games you typically have the luxury of throwing in a couple detail settings above what typical computers can handle to give a bit more life and to satisfy the people willing to spend huge sums of money on their rigs. That typically doesn't happen with consoles for obvious reasons.
A $100 video card upgrade can do wonders for performance and the experience, but with consoles you're largely stuck buying the next generation. And good luck if they don't make one. I'm shocked at how bad the graphics on my PS3 games look compared to some of the better PC games. Sure the PS3 games like FO:NV don't exactly look bad, but they're definitely not as good too look at as higher quality PC versions.
Which admittedly isn't that big of a deal, I tend to get sucked into a game far enough that I don't spend much time noticing that, but still.
Graphics are good enough, I would prefer they spent the extra resources on better writing and designing an aesthetic to wrap the whole game in. Or perhaps even QA, when a console game can't be released without significant bugs, you know that there's serious issues.
I take it you don't run Ubuntu...
Sure we do. I have a right to privacy when at home or in places where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because somebody is a celebrity does not mean that suddenly they have no privacy rights. It just means that they don't get to be anonymous in a crowd any more.
I realize that this is an unpopular position, but the reality is that whom a particular celebrity is sleeping with is hardly any of our business. Even if he or she is married.
Yes, but it's still not any business of the public what celebrities do on their own time. Now if they run for congress, particularly on a family values ticket, then it might be our business. As it is it isn't any more our business than if the neighbor down the street is doing it.
To be honest, that was never any business of the public at large. It's just that in the UK they can go to the courts and get an injunction. Whereas in the US there's little to nothing that can be done to keep the press out of the private lives of celebrities. To an extent that's natural, but if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.
Nice trolling. You do realize that even before MAC that security was more involved than that, right? Perhaps you might want to do some research before you post that kind of BS here. Setuid is necessary because some applications aren't properly programmed.
I can't help but notice that you're ignoring the fact that MAC came out before Windows got any sort of granular permissions and that up until Vista came out in 2006 that Windows effectively didn't have any ability to set permissions on the machines average users were using.
That might be, but what precisely does that have to do with malware that affects an OS which can't be made to run on a handset?
Um, isn't that the direction Apple has been going lately? First they take the buttons, then they take most of the ability to install apps, all they need to do is require a password to turn the thing on and not give it out for the vision to be complete.
OK, so because we've always done it that way, it must be a reasonable way. Nice appeal to tradition. Perhaps we should admit that it's unreasonable to expect that students taking an intro course to have experience. Call me naive, but I always assumed that introductory courses were intended for those without experience to gain some before getting into the more difficult coursework.
There's a difference between somebody flunking out of a potential major in a computer related area because they don't know how to work a computer and flunking out because they haven't been adequately prepared by the intro course.
I've grown fond of PF over time. It's amazing to me how much it can do with a little foresight. Unfortunately, it's still a bitch to work with FTP.
Bonner? Wasn't he the lead singer for U2?
That's what I get for not paying enough attention to my posts. Sigh, that should've been Roman columns.
Hardly. When was the last time you used Windows? With Windows Vista/7 As long as your wifi/ethernet card installs, Windows Update takes care of most of the drivers. Anything else can be found on the mfgr website.
That's been the case for quite a while. Right now it's not much of a problem, but I'm guessing that as Win 7 gets older that it's going to be more and more common for you to need a second driver disk to get the drivers. XP doesn't have much trouble finding drivers at present, provided you've got the ones for your network card.
But, if you've got drivers for the network card there's absolutely no reason why you can't download the correct drivers yourself.
Why would he need that? By that logic architects would need permission from the Romans whenever they chose to include Roman arches in their buildings. A lot of architects would be liable for infringement around here if that were true.
Historically the way that was handled was by art patronage. The artists would be working in a studio most days the way that other people would and the patron would pay for their time. Which would allow a large amount of art to be produced. The main problem with it was that it tended to stifle creativity as one still had to worry about making something that the patron liked.
Locally, the city has paid for public art that then belongs to the city and is available for whatever uses people have for the works. There are some practical limitations like you can't take the statues, but it's definitely one way of handling the problem.
Mike Tyson apparently doesn't own the rights to the original. It was apparently agreed to that the tattoo artist would own the copyright to the tattoo. Which seems odd to me, but that was apparently what they agreed to.
Except that this isn't parody by any reasonable definition. Which is going to be a real problem. I haven't seen the film, but merely slapping an identical looking design onto a character, even if the character is a parody, is not sufficient to extend fair use to that. Especially since there's no reason why the design needs to be that similar to the original.
If it's based that heavily on the original then it's likely to be considered a derivative work. And since there is apparently no creativity involved with recreating the tattoo for the movie it should be considered a derivative work.
As such, there definitely is going to be something of significance to this case if Warner Brothers manages to win. Or even if they don't, this would likely still have some pretty astonishing effects on the tattoo industry.
The difference is that patents expire, eventually, whereas copyrights seem to no longer expire.