. I wonder what they did with the other 9 months of that year?
So you think it took them 3 months to hang it? I am sure the planning involved more than just hanging the screen, and painting it. Maybe they needed to find someone to create the screen? Maybe they wanted to do some research on replacing the screen, since it has never been done before. Maybe they wanted to find the time to hire the best riggers?
My first thought was why replace the screen? What was wrong with the old one?
IMAX Australia is replacing the screen to give viewers a bigger, better and brighter 3D experience
Really? You think I'm going to get a better 3d experience from a 2d image? And somehow the same size screen will give me a bigger experience?
Please, can we let this "3d" nonsense die?
A tester tests the code.
A test engineer typically will write code to test the code. These aren't unit tests they are writing. But test scripts. Testers tend to test the finished product. They are the ones doing integration testing.
If you are currently a programmer you probably will not want to be a tester.
... Concerts and movie theaters make money because the experience you are buying is scarce.
Copies of music and movies are not scarce resources anymore.
So what you are suggesting is that movie companies should not release their movies to DVD (or digital). Instead they should hoard the digital bits, and only allow them to be show in movie theaters? Because that is what is going to happen if you force the movie companies to give their movies away for free.
Movies are indeed part of our culture; special effects need not be.
There are a lot of things that don't need to be a part of our culture, but that doesn't mean they won't be. People like special effects. Therefore the movie makers will put special effects into the film, and people will pay to go see them.
YES you can make a good movie on a budget. But normally you can make a better an enormous pile of cash. A better movie tends to make more in the box office. Which one do you think the movie makers will want to make?
All of the articles I read said 'text message" none of them called it a "tweet." There is a difference. Tweets are generally considered public, text messages aren't.
Considering what happened to the two Brits I think the answer to your first question is "0 hours"
Well, anything except actual threats. We are continually told on Slashdot that they don't exist despite continuing arrests and convictions. The lack of terrorist attacks isn't because there aren't terrorists, or that they don't wish to attack, but because they have been generally foiled to date due to good intelligence, hard work, and luck.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you justifying the action taken against the guy who sent a text message because other people were caught for "terrorist" like activities?
Just because terrorist exists, doesn't mean I have to lose my freedoms. Doesn't mean I should be arrested because I SAY something (in private even!)
YES there are bad people out there. And yes some of those bad people want to hurt others. Not all of them are terrorists. But that doesn't mean I have to give my rights up.
You will never get rid of all the criminals. Some will kill people. Some will embezzle money, some will rob banks, and some will steal software and music. There will always be criminals. You can stem the tide. You can educate people that it is wrong. but you won't stop everyone.
Of course you can always change your business model.
But people are greedy. Whether those people run the entertainment industry, or they consume the entertainment. People are greedy.
Seeing if somebody knows Dijkstra's algorithm is one of the most basic and effective ways of seeing if somebody is qualified to be involved with
software development.
Seriously? If you asked me what Dijkstra's algorithm was, I'd probably say it say it had to do with the Chicago Bear's dominance in the 80s. And yet I am definitely qualified to be involved with software development.
Don't be so quick to blame management. I know it's a reflex here on/., but the current craze for stand-up meetings, scrum, agile, etc., are being driven by tech staff.
In every company I have been apart of, that thought they were doing agile, and companies of friends... the "agile" was driven by management.
Removing copyright from the equation doesn't seem like it would help
and why it would not help. the case here is, the big boy easily copying the little guy, but not allowing little guy to copy him through lawyer power thanks to copyrights.
There was NO copyright violation here. THAT is why removing copyright wouldn't help.
Seriously?
Zynga is not the first corporation to "copy" a game, and they won't be the last. You cannot copy the look and feel. If they wrote the game from scratch, and drew their own graphics (that didn't look like the original) there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
Copyrights and patents are supposed to protect you from theft. Not from someone doing something similar, but in a better way.
While you might get sued, which I doubt, but you wouldn't lose. And you could probably counter sue Zynga with a frivolous lawsuit claim. There is an incredible amount of precedence for copying an idea, especially in the game world. Do you know how many games copied Pac Man?
It isn't just the uber rich NFL owners benefiting, but all of the small companies that make officially endorsed NFL products, as well as the people who work for them. In addition the common consumer knows that their $50 tshirt is a quality product and not some cheap knockoff.
Not everything the government does is to support the 1%
There is nothing wrong with the system.
You decided that the movie was worth £1. You couldn't find it at that price point. So your option is NOT watch it, or pay the extra money. You've chosen not to pay the extra money. So then your option is not watch it. You could write to the distributor and complain. But it doesn't mean you can steal it (I'm not saying you did)
That is why copyright should be never used against the private use of a work. Also it should not invade the privacy of the homes of citizens.
Sadly, it is doing both and the new harder laws to protect copyright will destroy our culture.
Because a business claims they might make money because people took home a pirated version of the business software means copyright shouldn't belong in the home? So how is one supposed to make money off something targeted to the home user?
I'm going to go ahead and abandon modding on this article, because I can't believe no one has called you on this crap.
On what crap? The fact that people are STEALING software helps with advertising? YOU don't get to decide how the company runs its business. You can't say "ohhh this will help advertising, so I'll steal it."
e. They should mark it as training to potential sale.
The business model that they choose, is their decision. You can't decide for them what business model to use. "Ohhh this company might profit if people stole there software and used it, therefore I'll steal their software." If the company felt they'd make more money by giving the software away, then they have the option of doing it. YOU don't have the option to take it from them
Slashdot Mirror
. I wonder what they did with the other 9 months of that year?
So you think it took them 3 months to hang it? I am sure the planning involved more than just hanging the screen, and painting it. Maybe they needed to find someone to create the screen? Maybe they wanted to do some research on replacing the screen, since it has never been done before. Maybe they wanted to find the time to hire the best riggers?
IMAX Australia is replacing the screen to give viewers a bigger, better and brighter 3D experience
Really? You think I'm going to get a better 3d experience from a 2d image? And somehow the same size screen will give me a bigger experience? Please, can we let this "3d" nonsense die?
A tester tests the code. A test engineer typically will write code to test the code. These aren't unit tests they are writing. But test scripts. Testers tend to test the finished product. They are the ones doing integration testing. If you are currently a programmer you probably will not want to be a tester.
... Concerts and movie theaters make money because the experience you are buying is scarce. Copies of music and movies are not scarce resources anymore.
So what you are suggesting is that movie companies should not release their movies to DVD (or digital). Instead they should hoard the digital bits, and only allow them to be show in movie theaters? Because that is what is going to happen if you force the movie companies to give their movies away for free.
Movies are indeed part of our culture; special effects need not be.
There are a lot of things that don't need to be a part of our culture, but that doesn't mean they won't be. People like special effects. Therefore the movie makers will put special effects into the film, and people will pay to go see them.
YES you can make a good movie on a budget. But normally you can make a better an enormous pile of cash. A better movie tends to make more in the box office. Which one do you think the movie makers will want to make?
I think your local city and state government would LOVE this. Think of the sales tax revenue they'll collect.
You can not give them to friendS. You can give the copy you have to ONE friend, as long as you don't keep a copy yourself.
The people aren't obligated to offer copyright at all, the Constitution merely permits it, and then only for the promotion of science and useful arts.
And the creator isn't obligated to create at all
We need to be asking the right questions here:
He made the tweet on Jan 21,
All of the articles I read said 'text message" none of them called it a "tweet." There is a difference. Tweets are generally considered public, text messages aren't. Considering what happened to the two Brits I think the answer to your first question is "0 hours"
Well, anything except actual threats. We are continually told on Slashdot that they don't exist despite continuing arrests and convictions. The lack of terrorist attacks isn't because there aren't terrorists, or that they don't wish to attack, but because they have been generally foiled to date due to good intelligence, hard work, and luck.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you justifying the action taken against the guy who sent a text message because other people were caught for "terrorist" like activities?
Just because terrorist exists, doesn't mean I have to lose my freedoms. Doesn't mean I should be arrested because I SAY something (in private even!)
YES there are bad people out there. And yes some of those bad people want to hurt others. Not all of them are terrorists. But that doesn't mean I have to give my rights up.
But I'd really like to see the exact contents of the original text,
It doesn't matter WHAT the text actually said.
You will never get rid of all the criminals. Some will kill people. Some will embezzle money, some will rob banks, and some will steal software and music. There will always be criminals. You can stem the tide. You can educate people that it is wrong. but you won't stop everyone. Of course you can always change your business model. But people are greedy. Whether those people run the entertainment industry, or they consume the entertainment. People are greedy.
Seeing if somebody knows Dijkstra's algorithm is one of the most basic and effective ways of seeing if somebody is qualified to be involved with software development.
Seriously? If you asked me what Dijkstra's algorithm was, I'd probably say it say it had to do with the Chicago Bear's dominance in the 80s. And yet I am definitely qualified to be involved with software development.
Which is true.
Don't be so quick to blame management. I know it's a reflex here on /., but the current craze for stand-up meetings, scrum, agile, etc., are being driven by tech staff.
In every company I have been apart of, that thought they were doing agile, and companies of friends... the "agile" was driven by management.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a class action lawsuit.
In the context of copyright and games, is this legal? Do the makers of Tiny Tower have legal recourse?
Yes it is legal. No they do not have any legal recourse. What they HAVE done is probably the best thing they can do.
Removing copyright from the equation doesn't seem like it would help
and why it would not help. the case here is, the big boy easily copying the little guy, but not allowing little guy to copy him through lawyer power thanks to copyrights.
There was NO copyright violation here. THAT is why removing copyright wouldn't help.
Seriously? Zynga is not the first corporation to "copy" a game, and they won't be the last. You cannot copy the look and feel. If they wrote the game from scratch, and drew their own graphics (that didn't look like the original) there is no grounds for a lawsuit. Copyrights and patents are supposed to protect you from theft. Not from someone doing something similar, but in a better way.
b) You'd get sued by Zynga - and they'd win.
While you might get sued, which I doubt, but you wouldn't lose. And you could probably counter sue Zynga with a frivolous lawsuit claim. There is an incredible amount of precedence for copying an idea, especially in the game world. Do you know how many games copied Pac Man?
Why not tax ALL video games, and then spend 100% of the revenue on parks and playgrounds?
It isn't just the uber rich NFL owners benefiting, but all of the small companies that make officially endorsed NFL products, as well as the people who work for them. In addition the common consumer knows that their $50 tshirt is a quality product and not some cheap knockoff. Not everything the government does is to support the 1%
Is it me that's broken, or their business model?
There is nothing wrong with the system.
You decided that the movie was worth £1. You couldn't find it at that price point. So your option is NOT watch it, or pay the extra money. You've chosen not to pay the extra money. So then your option is not watch it. You could write to the distributor and complain. But it doesn't mean you can steal it (I'm not saying you did)
That is why copyright should be never used against the private use of a work. Also it should not invade the privacy of the homes of citizens. Sadly, it is doing both and the new harder laws to protect copyright will destroy our culture.
Because a business claims they might make money because people took home a pirated version of the business software means copyright shouldn't belong in the home? So how is one supposed to make money off something targeted to the home user?
I'm going to go ahead and abandon modding on this article, because I can't believe no one has called you on this crap.
On what crap? The fact that people are STEALING software helps with advertising? YOU don't get to decide how the company runs its business. You can't say "ohhh this will help advertising, so I'll steal it."
e. They should mark it as training to potential sale.
The business model that they choose, is their decision. You can't decide for them what business model to use. "Ohhh this company might profit if people stole there software and used it, therefore I'll steal their software." If the company felt they'd make more money by giving the software away, then they have the option of doing it. YOU don't have the option to take it from them